Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-08-12 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, August 12, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN CCP 01-01.00 Concurrent Plat (Watkins, pp 650) Approved Page 3 LSD 02-20.00: Large Scale Development (Bristol Park, pp 134) Page 19 RZN 02-8.00: Rezoning (Nickell, pp 445/446) Page 23 RZN 02-23.00: Rezoning (Lindsey, pp 519) Page 38 RZN 02-24.00: Rezoning (Nelms, pp 209) Page 45 RZN 02-25.00: Rezoning (Sage House, pp 564) Page 50 Approved Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council CUP 02-23.00: Conditional Use (NE United Pentecostal Church, pp 251) Approved Page 52 CUP 02-25.00: Conditional Use (Callahan Tower, pp 404) Tabled Page 61 ADM 02-24.00: Administrative Item (Master Street Plan Setback Ordinance) Page 72 Approved Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT Nancy Allen Lorel Hoffman Donald Bunch Sharon Hoover Bob Estes Loren Shackelford Lee Ward Alan Ostner MEMBERSABSENT Alice Church STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Kit Williams Renee Thomas Ron Petrie Matt Casey Dawn Warrick Tim Conklin Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 3 Hoffman: Good evening, welcome to the Monday, August 12, 2002 meeting of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. The first item of business will be to call the roll. Would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were seven Commissioners present. Commissioner Hoover arrived at 5:35 p.m., Commissioner Church was absent. Approval of Minutes Hoffman: The next item of business is approval of the minutes from the July 22, 2002 meeting. Are there any amendments to those minutes? Hearing none, they will be approved. CCP 01-01.00 Concurrent Plat (Watkins, pp 650) was submitted by Bob Hill of Nickle-Hill Group, Inc. on behalf of Lorene Watkins Trust for property located at 2551 Mally Wagnon Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 40 acres with 10 lots proposed. Hoffman: The first item of business is CCP 01-1.00 which was submitted by Bob Hill of Nickle-Hill Group, Inc. on behalf of Lorene Watkins Trust for property located at 2551 Mally Wagnon Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 40 acres with 10 lots proposed. We have six conditions of approval. Tim, do we have signed conditions? Conklin: No. Hoffman: We do not, ok. I will go ahead and read those conditions in for the record. 1) Planning Commission determination of the proposed $5,000 contribution to install an eight inch water line along Mally Wagnon Road from Highway 16 southward approximately 1,700 feet to complete a waterline loop. If required, it shall be paid prior to filing the Final Plat. 2) The cemetery shall be labeled as lot 11 and labeled unbuildable. 3) A note shall be added to the plat which states that no lot splits will be allowed until such time the waterline along Van Hoose is upgraded to an 8 inch line and all City of Fayetteville and Washington County requirements are met. 4) Washington County approval shall be obtained for this subdivision. 5) Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 6) Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. Tim, do you want to fill us in on this one before we take comment or do we want to go ahead and hear from the applicant? Do you have any staff report for us or Ron? Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 4 Petrie: There has been much discussion about the water line in this area. I want to inform the Commission of a few things that are going on at this point. One is the county is widening Van Hoose Drive over to the east of this project. That widening is requiring the city to go in and relocate the water lines. We will be adding an 8" waterline approximately one mile long up to Hondo Lane. That is the first thing. The second thing is we have a cost share with Mr. Martin to complete a gap in the water line along Mally Wagnon Road. That is where the $5,000 will be going. That will be an 8" line connecting to Hwy. 16 and completing an additional loop. Myself, Dave Jurgens, the Water and Sewer Superintendent, and also Jim Beavers, the City Engineer, we all feel that those items will more than make up for the additional users that are proposed in this subdivision. Hoffman: Ok, thank you Ron. Is the applicant present? Hill: I am Bob Hill, I am with the Nickle-Hill Group and I represent Lorene Watkins, she is the owner of this 40 acres. Ms. Watkins, will you stand up please? That is the applicant. Ms. Watkins came to me some time ago and she asked me to help her sell, she has 103 acres on top of the hill where Mally Wagnon Road goes south to Hwy. 16. She has lived there for over fifty years with her husband. Her husband is deceased and she needs to get rid of the 103 acres, she can't take care of it by herself so she asked me to help her sell it and do it in the best way that I could. After going up there and looking at it, it is a very beautiful location. I am pretty positive that you can see Madison County from up there. It is very high, it has got some beautiful vistas out across there. The forty acre tract is naturally divided by two county roads, County Road 139 and County Road 141. It divides the forty acres into three distinct tracts. In looking at that it was easy to separate that and divide it up into ten lots. They are a little bit larger lots like 3 Yz acres to 5 acres lots. I checked with other real estate agents that specialized in residential real estate and they said that there was quite a demand for that product, that there really wasn't enough of it around the out skirts of Fayetteville. A lot of people like to have a little elbow room so to speak, a place where they can have a garden, pets, what have you. We decided to divide the forty acres into ten lots that range from 3 1/2 to around 5 '/Z acres each. During the course of that we got approval from, and Mr. Petrie has addressed the water issue. We have taken care of the problems there we think We have gotten approval from the City Engineering office for water pressure. We also have a letter from the State Department of Health, their Chief Engineer that has approved the site and the water pressure that is up there. We think that we have designed a very nice subdivision. It is just on the outskirts of town. It doesn't matter whether it is an individual person, a retired couple, or a young couple that wants to raise a family in a rural environment, we think that this would be a nice place for them. With that, I am going to stand on the recommendation of the Planning office and on the recommendation of the Subdivision Committee to approve this subdivision and I will be here to answer your questions or address your comments. Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 5 Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Hill. We appreciate that. Is there a member of the audience that would like to address us on this? If so, would you come forward, say your name please, and give us the benefit of your thoughts. Nixon: Good evening. I am Larry Nixon, I am the property owner next to this proposed subdivision at 2664 S. Van Hoose Drive. I am on the immediate east side all the way down the forty acre tract. The sixty acre tract that was also in mention is behind me to the south. The immediate three acre lot to the south of Van Hoose Drive is on my west side. There are some issues that we would like to bring forward. There are quite a few of the home owners in that area sitting in the back of this room. The first being the water situation. Not only has Mr. Hill been in contact with the State Health Department, we have too. We have right now pressure gauges on the house. Mr. Hodges instructed us that the minute that that drops to 19 pounds of pressure, anything from 20 to 26, 28 is minimum that we submit him a letter and he would shut it down. As of 11:15 this morning the pressure was 20 pounds. That was without a lot of stuff running, that was on the back. The high pressure yesterday was 32. If these lots that go in with the other ten houses on this subdivision were on that four inch line; yes, indeed, they are now, Ron and them are replacing an 8" from the tank on the east side around the mountain southeast side to Hondo Lane. From that point the hill takes affect and that is where we start up. At that point it dead heads to a 4" line. Down on Mally Wagnon, the new line that has been down there and all the engineering done, all the money that is set aside, it is $26,000 plus some change, I don't remember the exact amount to run a line from the city property line over to a line that comes across from Ed Edwards Road, which is also 1/2 mile from this property. The one on the east side is 1/2 mile from this property. The offer of the $5,000 to go under the road down at the bottom of the hill quite frankly has nothing to do with the subdivision. What it does is continue the promise that was made by the city to get a line to some homeowners on Mally Wagnon to give them water that they never had once their wells were going bad. The old line was put in but Washington County came across to the Elkins tank now around the mountain down off the mountain across Ed Edwards. These people on the bottom run a 2" line, back that off that just so four houses down there can have water. There are fourteen houses down there, that 8" line coming up the thing. Quite frankly, for less than $400 a piece, for the price of $5,000 they could have already had that line down under the road if we could have got through some of the politics and stuff to get it gone and get it done. Those people need water, without a doubt my neighbors need water clown on that end. I would even be, as far as that goes, I didn't know that this had been offered, I would pay the first $100 for each one of those home owners just to help them out. Now, our situation up on the top also deals with drainage. One of the things is that there are supposed to be covenants with this. I have seen a draft copy of a covenant. That draft copy of the covenant had some issues in it with drainage, which talks about each one of the property owners would be required to not drain on any particular property owner within the subdivision. The subdivision does not drain within itself. It does drain on every one else. It drains on Mr. Sexton below, it drains across me on the other side. Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 6 One of the things that we have got to keep in mind too with this forty acre ten lot house subdivision is that the sixty acres on the back is attached to that. In the disclosure form of that sixty acres states that there is water available on the street to that sixty acres. Watkins: Sixty-three Sir. Nixon: Sixty-three, excuse me. There is water available on the street. To get that water they have to come across this forty acres. They have to tie in into the new 8" line that is supposedly designed to go in on the west side of this subdivision. Quite frankly there is no fire protection. I guess one of us has to burn out up there before we get something sufficient enough to do that and that really means an 8" line. I haven't seen the City of Fayetteville, I haven't seen you gentleman and ladies pass anything with a developer in here without sufficient utilities to a subdivision. You have all taken great care over the years to take care of your people, your community, and your neighbors. Quite frankly, the price of these lots that has been stated up here if $26,000 will bring the water up to the line that goes across from there, $26,000 more would bring it up from Hondo now to the top of the hill and put it in there. I have never seen a subdivision that that wasn't figured in, those utilities weren't figured in. I don't think we can discharge on that. Also, it was stated in that covenant that these lots would never be split. I heard the other day that the Planning Committee already planned talking about not being able to split these lots until an 8" line was put up. That is a horse of a different color. The State Health Department has also stated that they cannot be split, or anyone else's property that is in that area. Craig Hodges said there is not enough there until an 8" line is run. Anybody else that is serviced with that 4" line cannot divide. That, not only alone with the ten houses on the acreage up there also turns that into where no one else can do anything. I understand that the city cannot turn anybody down that wants to put a tap on that line, you just won't have sufficient pressure. The 8" line will not give us substantial pressure throughout the system, but what it would do is give us constant pressure. If we could just get constant pressure, somewhere where we could take a shower and flush the stool at the same time and our neighbor flush the stool at the same time when they are in the shower. The problem we have is water and it is very, very critical. I have talked to the Fire Chiefs, I have talked to John Gibson with the county, I have talked to everybody I can go to and basically what they are talking about is money. I know you are tight in money. I have talked to Jim quite frankly and I have been reluctant for many reasons to mention Jim's name. I feel like I am pushing a bb with my nose through a rock pile trying to get enough funds to get water. You can't discount the neighbors. Loraine has a right, as every one else has a right, to do something with their property but they do not have the right to take away from their neighbors, their neighborhood, and the people that have been there alongside them. Take their utilities away for the price of a subdivision. If we can get water, if we can get substantial utilities, if we can get the stuff that we need being that this is in the one mile growth area, it is under city control, it is not under county control. The county goes across and asks the city. If they are Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 7 satisfied then the county is satisfied. One of these days we will be part of the City of Fayetteville. That is inevitable, it is in the growth, we are the growth. The City needs to stand up at this point and the Planning Commission needs to abide by those codes that are set down in the city of Fayetteville as they do and put forth for every other developer and every other subdevelopment in the city of Fayetteville. We just ask that you treat us, the citizens on the mountain, fairly and give us the considerations that you would for any other family that is on rations. We survive, we all keep water jugs, we take towel baths when we have to, but we survive. Ten houses won't cut it. Thank you. Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Nixon. Would anybody else like to address the Commission before I bring it back to the applicant for further discussion? Patrick: My name is Kenneth Patrick. I have lived here sixty-one years in the country and I am sixty-nine years old. I have also lived down on South School for many years. There is something that I would like to ask you. Have you ever heard of Washington County Ordinance 9433? Mr. Williams probably has. Williams: I really can't say that I do. I can barely keep up with the city ordinances. I don't know what the county ordinances are. Patrick: I talked to Mr. Jerry Hunton about it sometime ago and in short Washington County regulates the divisions and the development of subdivisions in the county. It has to be approved. Has anyone ever went to Washington County to have a lot split approved? Here is one right here. They allow you three lot splits. After that you know what follows? Washington County requires you to put in all streets, all water lines, and all sewer lines. If you want to look at this you can go on with it. There is one other thing that I would like to say. Over here in the back I have in my possession a contract with the City of Fayetteville. What it is composed of is a 20' right of way is what it consists of'. For sewer and water. It does not specify how much water. It says ample amount. What is an ample amount? At the time that this water line was put in I, being a contractor, spoke up. The City of Fayetteville said that they couldn't afford it. I said well if you can get an FHA loan to get everything in, I tell you what I'll do, I will dig the line and I will bury it and Fayetteville will approve it. They had never heard of that. "We can't do that" they said. If we are going to furnish the pipe and inspect it we will have to lay it ourselves. That is all good and dandy, lets get it done. They were only going to come half way around Van Hoose and then when it got around to the other corner down there on Mally Wagnon, what did they do? They decided those people over the hill need water too. We are going to go on down the hill, so they went on down the hill. In the meantime, on down the road somebody says I'm not going to give right of way to the city to put a water line in. I am not going to have my water line down the road. Why not? Because I am not going to give the right of way. Ok, what are you going to do about it? So they went across, they went on Ed Edwards Road and went down. Consequently, everybody's wells went bad down the road. What are we going to do about that? Lets get Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 8 water back up the road. I hear, and I have to keep up with this because I am nobody's fool, I hear there is a tap on the south side of Hwy. 16 in the middle of Mally Wagnon Road. There is a sewer lid there, I know that. I am pretty sure between that sewer lid and the gas pumps over there, there is a tap. How big it is I don't know. I looked at a piece of property down there and there was a tap over there then. I don't think the city has come by and taken that tap up. I am not standing in the way of Mrs. Watkins. Loraine can put in whatever she wants to do. If she wants to build a hotel out there, that is fine with me, I don't care. The point that I am trying to make, and I would like to make it to every one of you. At one time, when the new sewer plant went in out there, I happened to be one of them with Paul Massey who went out there and put up the irrigation system and that sewer line. I am going to say this real slow. At that time we had a disposal plant out here that the city swore up and down that it was taking care of the sewage, every bit of it. It only was built at that time for 3.5 million gallons. They said that they expanded that sewage out there to 5 million gallons. We built a disposal plant, a new one out there and we built it for 7.5 million gallons. The day they opened it and started running the sewage in out there it was running nearly 6 million gallons of sewage. I went out there to set up the tanks. The point I am trying to make is that everybody wants water, I don't want to hold anybody up but like Mr. Nixon said, I checked the water level, I've got pressure gauges I can do it. Last summer from 4:00 to about 7:00 the water pressure fell to about 17 pounds. That fell from 55 pounds to 17 pounds. The high water pressure was 90 pounds and it fell to 50 pounds. The thing I am saying is that I don't care what they do or how they separate this land or anything about it but I am old as dirt and I've been out there a long time and I've walked down Hwy. 16 when it was dirt and Jefferson School south was the city limits, Washington Regional was the city limits. I went to Fayetteville High School and I walked a lot of times to school. I tell you this, I think under this contract and under this right here that everybody deserves just water. I am not standing in the way or anything else but I do think we should have somebody look and give ample water out there. That is the main thing. You can't develop if you don't have it. I lived out there when you drew the water out of the well. I am appreciative of the water, real appreciative of it. The point is that we need to go back and we need to look at this water pressure deal. I am not going to tell you who the guy was, I was talking to him the other day, Elkins has got a water tower over there, they are putting this new line in. I said it looks to me like that Elkins need to come up with them a new water tank and Fayetteville use that water tank that is up there to backpressure that line. That is what it looks like to me. I don't know, I have complained about a lot of things to the Health Authority about Elkins' sewer dumping off in the road ditch out there but I haven't been able to get anybody to stand up for it but I am going to. I tell you what, I think that if we are going to be in the growth area, first of all, I don't have any right to vote in any city elections. I have government but I don't have any presentation for it. I don't have any right to speak but nevertheless I think our waterline needs to be updated a little bit. I am pretty close to Hondo Lane. I don't think that the water pressure will bother me as much as it will people on out the road. The engineers that were out there that I've talked to told Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 9 me that this 8" line would up the water pressure in that 4" line. Whether it will or not I don't know, but I will be able to tell when they get it in operation. Nevertheless, I wanted you to know about this Washington County ordinance, 9433 and this contract here that I've got. I intend to have water. I gave land for sewer and water purposes, that is what I gave it for. If they are not going to use it, hell, I want it back! That is as simple as A -B -C. I am paying taxes on it. I think somebody, frankly, if we don't have the right amount of water out there and we can't get it and we starve a lot of people out, I don't know, Mr. Williams might know, there may be room for legal cause out there. I am not threatening you or anything else, but I think that under this right here we need to get the water going. I really do. As close as it is out there I think within 'A mile a pipe would cure the whole situation that everybody is arguing about. I think that '/ mile of pipe would cure the whole situation. That is 1,300'. I think that coming off that hill with a 4" line you would have ample pressure after you leave the 8" line. I don't know, but that is all that I have to say. Thank you. Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Patrick. Is there anybody else that would like to address us on this subdivision? In the interest of time, if you could avoid repeating other people's comments we would appreciate it. Whitehead: It will be real short. My name is Mike Whitehead, I am also a neighbor up on this property right here. My main concern is just the water pressure. Last Thursday morning, August 8th I was taking a shower at 5:30 in the morning, I had just barely enough water pressure to take a shower and that is without everybody else being up and it is this way quite often. I have had to send my kids to my mother in law's house in town to take a shower before school. Like I said, I am not against her, Mrs. Watkins dividing her property, doing that, but we do need water pressure up there more than what we have. Thank you. Hoffman: Is there anybody else? I will be closing discussion to the public unless anybody else would like to come forward and bring it back to the applicant and to the Commission for further discussion. It is your turn Mr. Hill. Hill: Is there anything specifically I need to address besides water pressure? Hoffman. That is your choice. Hill: We have gone through this for I don't know how many months that we have been going back and forth on the water pressure issue. I don't live up there and I don't know if anybody on the Commission lives up there either. I have put myself in the hands of the professionals that know their business and know what they are doing. I know everybody has their agendas. There is no way that I can tell whether there is water pressure up there without going up at 5:30 in the morning and taking a shower and I don't know that any of the rest of us can either. I do know that what we have done is that we have gone to the professionals, both Mr. Petrie and the Chief Engineer after we had the water pressure tests done. To go Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 10 into a little bit more detail than what we have done, several months ago, and I don't remember when it was first done when the water pressure issue came up. Our application was tabled at the Subdivision Committee level until we could prove that there was sufficient water pressure up there. I didn't know how to start to do that so I went to Mr. Petrie and he decided that the best way to do that would be to put a gauge on a water meter for a weeks time to determine what the level of water pressure was for an entire week. We did that and the results of that were not good. The water pressure was low. The main thing that was pointed out from that test was that there were wild fluctuations in the water pressure. It really went up and down dramatically. Mr. Petrie said that there must be some problem other than, and correct me if I get this story wrong, but I think this is right. There has got to be an underlying problem other than just a lack of water pressure up there. There is something else causing those wild fluctuations. To Mr. Petrie's credit he found out what the problem was and he fixed it. It ended up, again, correct me if I use the wrong terminology, but I think it was a valve over by the water tank that was addressed earlier tonight that goes to Elkins. Apparently there is water pressure from both ends and if there is more this way the flap goes that way and if there is more pressure coming from this direction the flap goes the other direction. That is my elementary way to describe that. Anyway, the valve was sticking and that was what was causing the problem. It was fixed and we did another test up there and the water pressure was doubled after the repair was made to the valve and more important than that, we didn't have the wild fluctuations in the water pressure either. That is all that we can do to try to determine. It was put in our hands to prove that there was sufficient water pressure. The last thing that Mrs. Watkins wants to do or myself either one, being involved in this project, is to sell lots to ten families when there is no water. We have to go with what the professionals say and they have told us on both occasions, the last occasion especially, that there is sufficient water pressure and that is the only thing that we can bank our decisions on to go forward. The other thing that I would like to address is are covenants and restrictions required in the city or the county for a subdivision? Conklin: That is up to you. It is your client and whether or not they want to file those. Hill: Ok, we intend to have covenants and restrictions out there. We don't have a final set. I know that was referred to earlier. We kind of stopped doing that from a legal aspect because we didn't want to spend any legal dollars to finish up those covenants and restrictions if this didn't get approved. We do intend to have those, we think this will be a nice subdivision. We have priced it in a way that we want it to be very nice homes. We think that it will be a nice addition to this area and if anything will increase the value up there with what we are planning on doing up there. Those are my comments. Hoffman: Thank you very much. Before we go forward I would like Ron to answer one question that came up about the State Health Department approval. Should the water pressure drop below the minimums can the state shut down the subdivision? Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 11 Petrie: Is that what I understood the first gentleman to say? I have never known that to happen. It was mentioned that the minimum pressure was at the faucet. That is not true. It is at the water main. According to our records, at the water main the typical pressure is around 50 PSI and we do have fluctuations where it does go down to about 25 at the water main. Where it goes through your plumbing through your house, that is not a public portion of the waterline and the state would not have any say over that portion of it. Hoffman: Say if the houses that tapped into the line caused the existing houses pressure to drop, would there then be something that the state could say that no more houses could be built and the subdivision would be basically stopped? Petrie: They have pretty much done that. On their approval, and I will just read. "Because fluctuations in the pressure recordings submitted are almost 25 PSI the City of Fayetteville should look at possible water line upgrades before any additional subdivisions are proposed in that area." They have really given us a warning to say this is their advice and we typically follow their advice. I don't really foresee us recommending any additional subdivisions until this loop is completed. When it is completed there will still be low pressure up there. It is just a matter of that elevation in relation to our tank elevations. They will always have low pressure up there until another tank, another pressure plain is established up on top of Robinson Mountain at a higher elevation. Hoffman: Thanks Ron. Commissioners, do you have any comments or suggestions? Conklin: I just want to make one clarification. With regard to adequate water for fire protection, fire hydrants. The City of Fayetteville does not provide that type of service outside the city limits. We are not in the business of building a system of fire hydrants and fire protection for Washington County. Secondly, with regard to Mr. Kenneth Patrick's mention with regard to one mile outside the city, that is something that Jerry Hunton did indicate that the cities did have a right to impose our city regulations. However, our current ordinance states that subdivisions that do not adjoin our city limits shall comply with the county standards so that is by ordinance right now. However, it is something that staff has considered looking at in the future whether or not we want to actually impose our city standards for storm water, grading, street construction, water, street lights, everything you see in a urban subdivision which would be quite a huge departure within our planning area where you have minimal urban type infrastructure improvements made on a subdivision. I am not sure that is something that the Commission and the Council or the public inside the city or outside the city would be willing to go that far to require everything we do for a subdivision that would be inside the city. Thank you. Hoffman: Thanks Tim. That is not something that is now in place. I did want to address those concerns and say that to my knowledge the city was providing basically Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 12 water service but that was the extent of it and that we are relying on the ruling by the Health Department and the pressure tests to reach these conclusions. Conklin: That is correct. The City of Fayetteville, with regard to fire protection once again, some of the public may have heard from our Fire Chief last Tuesday night talking about the needs to serve the citizens of Fayetteville within our city limits with an additional fire station. We have no plan of putting fire stations and fire personnel out in Washington County to serve the entire county. That is something that maybe Washington County would like to consider doing if they want to provide fire protection for the residents in those areas. I just want to make that point because I do hear that often and see on the news once in a while about there is no fire protection within these areas. The City has no plan of extending our fire protection to Washington County. Hoffman: Thanks Tim. Ward: We have seen this particular plan at Subdivision Committee a couple or three times. The reason we moved it on to the full Planning Commission this last time was because of the willingness of the applicant to provide some money to get this other loop completed, which our engineer tells us will not only provide water to several people that have no water at all, but also should stabilize the other lines out there because of making another loop. Our City Engineer has also said that this additional water line will more than offset the ten additional lots that are going to be put up there on the hillside. I don't think it is going to make the problem worse than what the expert is saying. The State Depaitment of Health has approved the water pressure for this ten lot subdivision and with all the other conditions that we have on there. Of course this still has to go to Washington County approval for this same subdivision. I will go ahead and recommend approval of CCP 01-1.00 with all conditions of approval. Hoffman: There is a motion by Commissioner Ward, do I hear a second? Ostner: I will second. Hoffman: I have a second by Commissioner Ostner. Is there any further discussion? Shackelford: Just a quick question of the applicant. Staff has recommended approval subject to six conditions of approval. It was mentioned earlier that we do not have signed conditions of approval, are there any of these conditions that you or your client have taken issue with? Hill: No. Shackelford: So you are in agreement with all of those conditions? Hill: Yes Sir. Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 13 Shackelford: Thank you. Estes: I have several questions. This proposed subdivision is in the county and it is before us because it is in our planning area. Mr. Conklin, exactly what is before us this evening? What dispositive action are we being asked to take? None of the rules or regulations governing subdivisions apply because it is in the planning area and not within the city. We have heard some very articulate and well spoken comments regarding some things that need to be done but those things are not within our authority to accomplish are they? Conklin- What you are looking at this evening is a concurrent plat and we do have regulations relating subdivisions outside the city limits within our planning area. Those regulations basically are fairly minimal. This piece of property does not adjoin the city limits. They are not required to put in street lights, curb and gutter, meet city street standards, tree preservation, grading, drainage, what we are looking at are the lots that are proposed, do they have adequate access to a public street, which we look at and we have talked about water with regard to sewer. We don't extend our sewer outside the city limits, that is by city ordinance, a city policy that the city council made many years ago. Therefore, pretty much we look at it to make sure it has adequate access and adequate water and then we bring everything to you after this process they do need to go to county planning and find out where to go from there and whether or not it is administrative or county planning board approval. Estes: Condition of approval number three says that there will be no lot splits until the water line is upgraded up to 8", does that contemplate additional lot splits or does that mean the lot splits that are shown on the concurrent plat? Conklin: That is meant to state that after this subdivision that no additional lot splits will be allowed or will be recommended to this Commission, until that water line is approved. Estes: The lots that we see on the concurrent plat that is before us this evening, it will be permissible for there to be a lot split of those lots once the 8" line is in place? Conklin: As long as they meet the regulations that we have, yes. We would not be able to deny that. Estes: The 3 %Z acre lot could become three one acre more or less lots? Conklin: Yes. Anything less than an acre and half they need to get their septic system approved by the State Health Department prior to bringing that through the process so that is a possibility. Keep in mind that we are not allowed to extend our zoning regulations outside the city limits. Some cities are on a navigable river or stream. In this situation we are not able to so there is no minimum lot area or Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 14 lot size other than some very minimal of about 10,000 sq.ft. Normally you see something larger than that since we, as a city ordinance, do not allow sewer outside the city limits. The septic system is pretty much the result of the size lots you see. Estes: The issues that are before us this evening then are is there road frontage to the lot, and is there water, is that correct? Conklin- That is correct. Estes: Staff finds that both of those conditions exist? Conklin: That is correct. Estes: Thank you Madam Chair. Allen: Ron, I was wondering whether or not we are saying that when this water line is built that the water pressure will be adequate for this neighborhood or that water pressure will be improved? Petrie: It is our opinion that it will be improved. Allen: If we add that much more will it just then become adequate or will it be better than it is now? Petrie: It will be better than it is now. Adequate is a questionable term. They will still have low pressure. Some houses may have periods where you can't run two things at once. I lived in the same situation and I had 75 PSI at my meter. I couldn't run a shower upstairs and flush. That has a lot to do with your plumbing. A lot of people still have problems. It is our opinion that these two water extensions will more than make up for the ten proposed houses. Allen: When will this water extension be completed? Petrie: The one on the east will probably be completed within the next couple of weeks. I think they are about half way complete with it. The other one, I am working with Mr. Martin so I don't exactly know on that one. It is really up to him. In a lot of the correspondence with the neighbors it wasn't mentioned but he is paying about $13,000 on top of what the city is paying so he has got some say on exactly when that is going to happen so I cannot guarantee that portion. I have been told by Mr. Martin that he will move forward now that he has this extra money. Allen: Thank you. Ostner: Mr. Petrie, I understand what you have told us that with the 8" line and with these improvements that it will more than adequately cover the ten lots. In a nut shell, Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 15 Petrie: if in a year from now these residents are still dissatisfied, what are some of the purely engineering solutions that are needed, not having to do with who pays or where, or Elkins. Just pure and simple, what are some of the solutions other than this? The first thing you would do is be able to complete the 8" loop since we'll have 8" on both ends of it we will have about a mile where it is 4" instead of 8", so that would be the first thing you would do. You would complete that loop. Again, that would help with some of the fluctuations. It would not give you good water pressure because again, this is an elevation problem. Secondly you would have to look at putting a tank on Robinson Mountain, putting a booster station, and just setting a whole other pressure plain for the mountain here. We have two or three within Fayetteville in that same situation. It is a whole other booster station to maintain, whole other tanks to maintain. It is quite a lot of a maintenance issue when you do that. Those would be the two things. To really fix the problem you need the tank on a higher pressure plain. Ostner: Which we are not responsible for since this isn't completely in the city limits, it is only in the growth area. That is basically an issue of proximity and being in the city limits because we are not going to establish another pressure plain until it is within our jurisdiction basically. Petrie: More than likely that is the case. Of course there are political decisions. If that is a high priority it can be done but we would not be responsible to provide the fire flows and that is where you really need the higher pressure and the 8" lines. It is my opinion that it is only our obligation to provide 20 PSI at the waterline. That is really the only requirement we have from the state on that if we provide the service. The service is not guaranteed in the county. Bunch: Ron, if an 8" waterline were completed to finish up the loop, could there conceivably still be some pressure problems due to elevation. If a booster station and tank were not put in, even though the flow would still be there, would there still be pressure problems at the higher elevations where individual property owners might have to install their own accumulator and booster pumps? Petrie: Estes: Yes. I believe there will be. That is what I recommend because I think you have to look at the fact of when would we put a tank in to solve the problem. I think if you want sufficient pressure that some of the neighbors should be looking into that. Mr. Conklin, if I understand correctly the two salient considerations before us are that each lot must have road frontage and there must be adequate water, is that correct? Conklin: That is correct. Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 16 Estes: Do I understand condition of approval #3 to mean that there could be 20 lots in this subdivision? Conklin: Yes. Including all the surrounding property owners could apply next week to our office and ask for a subdivision. The people on the other side of town could ask for a subdivision. Yes. That is how the regulations are set up. Estes: Once we approve this condition of approval number three, once the 8" waterline is in a lot owner in this subdivision as a matter of right could split one of those lots, is that correct? Conklin- They could apply and we would review the regulations and ordinance. Yes, I am trying to answer your question directly. However, Ron Petrie would be involved in that and the Commission most likely would be involved in that lot split. A notice would go out and we would hear from the public again. Yes, it could be approved. Estes: Simply stated my concern is that if I vote yes for the motion and there are a number of lot splits, people aren't going to have adequate water. Conklin: We as a city have to approve those lot splits. If they split them and they file them over at the clerk's office, they are in violation of the city ordinance and state law without our knowledge. Estes: I understand that but as a matter of right once the 8" waterline is in a lot owner can apply for a lot split and to be very pragmatic about it you are going to give it to them. Conklin: I am not going to say that I am going to give it to them. We are going to evaluate it and review it like we have reviewed this one and every other lot split. Most likely unless these lots are coming before the Commission, due to size, I think that there may be only one or two lots that you wouldn't have to see them before the Commission and if they meet our city ordinances, yes, staff would be recommending approval. Hoffman: Commissioner Estes, I think I want to throw my two cents and answer what I think is your question about the lot splits. Those are merely shorter subdivisions. Is that correct Tim? That is a form of a subdivision. Conklin: That is correct. Hoffman: So you go through the same approval process that this plat is going through essentially and have the same reviews. Conklin: That is correct. There are some administrative lot splits. Just looking at these lot sizes, I don't see any of these, all of these would be coming before the Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 17 Commission. Hoffman: My question is that if there is not adequate water pressure, being the 20 pounds at the meter, those would not be approved because that is an item of review. Conklin: Staff would not recommend it. Hoffman: So we still have that safe guard in place and we couldn't after this particular subdivision has been approved, continue to exasperate the problem by adding more lots if there is not adequate pressure. Conklin- That is correct. Someone would file an application with our office. We would look at it, Ron Petrie would look at it. Staff would be making a recommendation based on the information that we have to date and I am sure that that would be a consideration with regard to our recommendation. I can't guarantee what is going to happen on each individual lot once they are sold as we have seen all over the community and our planning area. Hoffman: Thanks Tim. Bunch: Just a little bit of clarification on the same subject concerning condition number three. At the August 1st Subdivision Committee meeting Larry Nixon asks "Lets clarify something here," and I am reading directly from the minutes, "this is if anybody else on that mountain decides they would like to split their property anytime past this they would be denied that privilege until the 8" waterline is in place, is that correct?" It was answered by Sara Edwards. "No. We are only limiting this subdivision right here. Anyone else that wants to do it will be able to go through the process." It is kind of confusing because subsequent to that on August 4th there is a letter from Larry Nixon where he stated the City Planning Representative also stated that once this subdivision is approved no one else served by the 4" line will be allowed to subdivide their property until an 8" line is installed. That is an incorrect statement. The limiting of the lot splits, as I understood it from the Subdivision Committee and the planning staff's answer at Subdivision, was only this subdivision was denied the right to split their lots until the 8" line was in. It has no affect on other property owners on the mountain. Conklin: But we would take that information and as part of our recommendation we would want to make sure that you had that information and staff understood it and whether or not it was for approval or denial based on water pressure. I would rely on our staff engineer here with regard to that recommendation. Petrie: Hoffman: Of course we would use the Health Depai lment's letter to make sure that we have an 8" loop completed. That would be our recommendation. Thank you. Is there anybody else? Renee, would you call the roll please? Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 18 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CCP 01-1.00 was approved by a vote of 7-1-0 with Commissioner Estes voting no. Hoffman: Thank you. The motion carries on a vote of seven to one. Hill: Thank you very much. Hoffman: Thank you. Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 19 LSD 02-20.00: Large Scale Development (Bristol Park, pp 134) was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf of Bristol Development Group, LLC for property located west of Steele Blvd. and north of Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned RMF -12, Moderate Density Multi -Family Residential and contains approximately 32.6 acres with 272 units and a club house proposed. Hoffman: The second item on our agenda is LSD 02-20.00 which was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf of Bristol Development Group, LLC for property located west of Steele Blvd. and north of Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned RMF -12, Moderate Density Multi -Family Residential and contains approximately 32.6 acres with 272 units and a club house proposed. We have eight conditions of approval. Tim, are those conditions signed? Conklin. Yes. Hoffman: I will go ahead and read those in. 1) Planning Commission determination of the requested waiver to allow for a curb cut wider than 39 feet. The applicant is proposing a 24 foot wide entrance and a 24 foot wide exit which will be separated by a landscaped island. The standard is a 15 foot wide entrance with a 24 foot wide exit. This is considered a waiver of 9 feet. Staff is in support of this request. 2) Planning Commission determination of the requested waiver for retaining walls greater than 10 feet in height. The applicant is requesting a maximum retaining wall height of 15 feet. Staff is in support of this request. 3) Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 4) Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 5) Payment of parks fees in the amount of $102,000 (272 units @$375 each). 6) Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year. 7) Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area. c. Project Disk with all final revisions d. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by § 158.01 ■ Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy e. Parks fees paid and/or deed recorded and copy received. I need to make a revision to this, there are seven items of approval. Tim, do we have eight or seven conditions? I think we just had a typo on the numbering, it goes from one to three. Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 20 Conklin: Hoffman: Milholland: Hoffman: Estes: Hoffman: Bunch: Hoffman: Ward: Hantrow: Seven. Ok, thank you. Mr. Milholland, do you have a presentation or would you care to answer questions? Melvin Milholland with Milholland Engineering. I would like to say first off that on behalf of the developers of Bristol Development we concur with all the conditions of approval. We signed off on that and I just handed those to Mr. Conklin and we would respectfully request approval of the plat and the waivers. If in the course of this you have any questions from the developers we have several representatives here tonight. Thank you very much. Is there any member of the public that would wish to comment on this Large Scale Development? Seeing none, I will go ahead and bring it back to the applicant and to the Commission for further discussion. This is a project in CMN Phase II, which we approved the Final Plat for on May 14th of last year. This is a moderate density multi -family residential project. It provides an excellent mixed use with retail and restaurants. The request for the curb cut waiver is supported by staff. The request for the waiver for the retaining wall greater than 10' in height is supported by our Landscape Administrator. The reason for that request is so that six additional trees may be preserved. It is for these reasons that I would move that we approve LSD 02-20.00. Thank you Commissioner Estes. I have a motion, do I have a second? I will second. I have a second by Commissioner Bunch. Is there any further discussion? I think it is maybe a good time, since they have some drawings and so on here that the applicants might tell us a little bit about the project, what type of buildings they are as far as units and the type of construction materials and so on and maybe a little bit about what the rent rates could be. I am David Hantrow with Bristol Development out of Nashville, Tennessee. We are very excited about our proposed project in the Steele Crossing Development, also CMN. The rendering that you see here is actually of the entry of the property is divided by what we call a village green or large open green space to provide somewhat of a park setting. This design is consistent with some of the design concepts of traditional neighborhood development, or new urbanism as they call it. The property will consist of two and three story buildings. You see the two story buildings that will be along Steele Blvd. and the three story buildings will be further back. We are proposing 272 units will a club house. Amenities will include a swimming pool, a fitness center, a business center, lots of sidewalks and Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 21 Ward: Hantrow: Hoffman: Hantrow: Hoffman: Shackelford: open space for outdoor activities, sand volleyball courts. This is consistent with our amenity packages of all of our upper end multi -family developments. You asked about rental rates and that is something I typically don't like to say openly because the market is going to set the rental rates but we are projecting one bedrooms, two bedrooms, and three bedrooms with a rent range of $600 up to $1,200 for the largest units. Ok. In the buildings that you see there, those are two story buildings that have 12 units per building. Ones, twos and threes. Half of those apartments have direct access garages that tuck directly into the building and connect directly to an apartment so it feels more like a single-family home when you pull up into your apartment. We will also have some detached garages for people to put cars in as well if they want covered parking as well as more than adequate surface parking on the property. Our buildings are wood frame construction. The exteriors are hardy plank and brick, 25 year dimensional shingles on the roof. We do what I consider to be a well above average landscaping package. Our signage will be consistent with the quality of the rest of the development and it should be a really nice addition to this area. We think that there is a demand in this area for this kind of product and we think it will be well received. Thank you very much. I will be happy to answer any other questions. Commissioner Shackelford? Madam Chair, I have one quick question of staff. We are asked tonight to find in favor of two waivers. One being the retaining wall, we have a memo from Kim Hesse saying that that will get us some additional trees on the property. The other is the waiver for the width of the entrance. It states that staff is in support of that. I didn't see anything of why we are in favor of that. I thought if it was ok just for the record, we could get that as to why we are in favor of that request. Conklin- Sure. The Fayetteville Fire Department requested that the entry be enlarged in order to get the fire trucks in and out of this facility so not only was the entrance on Steele enlarged but the entrances into the development itself were enlarged for fire trucks. Shackelford: Ok, thank you. That is all I have. Hoffman: Bunch: Thank you. Just as a matter of record, we are showing existing tree canopy preserved as 32.7% and preservation area by covenant is 21.49%, I have a feeling that I know Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 22 why the differential is there but just for the record could you explain it please? On the grading, erosion control, and tree preservation plan it shows the preservation area by covenant is 21.49%, 20% is required but it is also saying that the existing canopy preserved is 32.7%, I just wanted an explanation of the additional preservation. Jefcoat: Right. The additional preservation is because we are going to preserve all of the canopy on the site. We are not taking away any canopy so all existing canopy will be preserved and we are putting it all into preserve so there won't be any future development in those areas. Bunch: So the differential in the area preserved by covenant would be that it is remote from the buildings and any additional percentage that brings it up to 32% would be trees in close proximity to the development area? Jefcoat: That are on site, yes. Bunch: Thanks. Hoffman: Anybody else? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 02-20.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Hoffman: Thank you. The motion carries unanimously. Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 23 RZN 02-8.00: Rezoning (Nickell, pp 445/446) was submitted by Bob Hill of Nickle-Hill Group on behalf of J.C. & Alma Nickell for property located at 867 N. College Avenue. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.29 acres. The request is to rezone to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Hoffman: The third item on our agenda tonight is RZN 02-8.00, which was submitted by Bob Hill of Nickle-Hill Group on behalf of J.C. & Alma Nickell for property located at 867 N. College Avenue. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.29 acres. The request is to rezone to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Staff recommendation is denial of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as a part of this report. Tim, this has been before us several times. I wondered if you could restate your report or staff's position please? Conklin: Sure. This is a request to rezone this piece of property from R -O to C-2. The applicant has requested the rezoning in order to utilize the building for an auto lube and tune type or lube shop. This building has previously been used for automotive repair in the past. The City of Fayetteville had received some complaints in the past with regard to cars parked near the intersection of Cleburn and Hwy. 71 Business or College Avenue. The building has been vacant. It has been vacant more than six months. It is currently zoned R -O. It does not allow the use for the automotive lube shop to be reestablished there. Staff still has concerns with regard to changing this to a C-2 zoning district with the lack of area for car storage waiting to get their oil changed and lack of parking and storage area, which could potentially cause some visibility concerns on College Avenue at the intersection. Once again, staff has made that recommendation for denial. The owner of the property has approached the city over the last, since 1970, concerned over the property being rezoned to R -O. However, at this time it remains R -O and the Planning Commission will have to make a decision on what to recommend to the City Council. Hoffman: Thank you Tim. Is the applicant present? If you would come forward and tell us your name and give us your presentation please. Nickell: J.C. Nickell, Bob Hill represents us. Hoffman: You should go get him. You are up. Hill: That was supposed to have lasted longer. Hoffman: We are on the applicant's part. Do you have a presentation that you would like to make or would you like me to take public comment first and then answer that? Hill: That would be fine. I have a presentation but in whatever order you would like. Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 24 Hoffman: That would be fine if you would like to take a moment to get your things together. Hill: I apologize. Hoffman. Put it where the camera can see it because we can all see the board from here pretty well. Hill: My name is Bob Hill. I am with the Nickle Hill Group and I am representing J.C. and Alma Nickell. They are here this evening, right here. I just wanted to point out that these are real people, they lived their life and lived most of their lives in the city of Fayetteville. They have a Rogers address now just because they retired and moved to the lake but they have spent most of their time here in Fayetteville. The Nickle Hill Group was hired by the Nickells in October, 2000 to sell or lease the property that we are talking about this evening at 867 N. College. We have been trying to find a user since that time for someone to either buy or lease the property. We have found a tenant who is a franchisee for a national automotive repair and service company. It is a company that as over 300 sites around the United States. He moved here specifically to be the franchisee for this company and he wants to put an operation in each main city in Northwest Arkansas. He wanted Fayetteville to be the flagship, as most people do when they come to Northwest Arkansas, they want to start in Fayetteville. We have gone far enough down the process of pretty much negotiating the terms of the lease. We have talked about what the landlord is going to do as far as cleaning up the property, both power washing the interior and exterior and repainting the building. Also to resurface and restripe the parking lot so the finished product, if we get to that point will be far nicer than what it is today. But we have run into a problem and that is with the zoning. To start with, I have the utmost respect for the Planning Office. Mr. Conklin, Ms. Warrick, and the rest of the people in that office. I work with them a lot and they have a very difficult task. They have to make decisions, sometimes those are objective and sometimes they are subjective, but they always have to make a call. They have to make a decision based on something. I have had numerous conversations with the Planning office regarding this property and what we could do under what we thought was the current zoning. I would like to go on record for the owner tonight and say that they would be very happy with C-1 zoning if we had a different interpretation of Use Unit 18. Through our conversations with Mr. Conklin and Ms. Warrick, it is their interpretation that you can not operate an automotive service and repair station in Use Unit 18. Use Unit 18 is for gasoline service stations so in our opinion all we are doing is not selling gasoline so that is where we disagree with their interpretation and I wanted to make that clear up front. C-2 zoning is not sacred to us. I know that that is a concern with the neighborhood and the primary concern being all the other things that you can do in a C-2 zoning. That is why we have come to the Planning Commission tonight proposing a C-2 zoning but limiting and giving the Bill of Assurance limiting what we could do on that site to only what you could do in a C-1 zoning plus automotive repair and service. That Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 25 is the reason we are asking for C-2. We would be happy with C-1 if we could figure out how to do that and still operate a business for which the building was designed and built for. I would like to draw your attention to the city's 2020 plan and I have it on display here. This property is designated as community commercial according to the 2020 plan. This is the property right in here and the part that I have highlighted basically goes from Lafayette north all the way to the mall basically. Almost all of that, if not all of it, is designated community commercial on the 2020 plan and all of that is zoned C-2, except for the little stretch on the west side of College Avenue from Trenton Avenue to North Street. I wanted to point out that it is community commercial and that all the other property there is community commercial and it is zoned C-2 except for us. Before go to the zoning, I would like to read a definition for community commercial, and this is straight from the ordinance I believe from the City of Fayetteville. Community Commercial areas are defined as activity areas that primarily serve the residents of a community. These areas shown on the proposed land use plan would include grocery stores, dry cleaners, restaurants, daycare, video stores, banks, cafes, gas stations, and other similar types of commercial service that are convenient and serve residents on a daily basis. That is the definition for community commercial. I think that automotive repair and service certainly fits within that definition. If you will look at the city's zoning map that I have here on display for you, this is our property right here and according to that map that we had at the time our property was zoned C-1. That was another incorrect zoning designation that when we really got down and looked at it at the planning office, we determined that the real zoning for the property was R -O. We had done all of our marketing efforts based on it being C-1 and I know that the owners had thought that it was zoned commercial for a long time also. If you will look, this is our property and all of that there from Trenton Avenue up to North Street, just on the west side of the road is zoned R -O. That happened back in 1970. I don't know why and maybe somebody here on the Planning Commission or in the audience, but I haven't had anybody give me a reason why that was zoned R -O. It is the only place anywhere in Fayetteville is here and that is Archibald Yell when it turns to the west and goes down the hill, that is zoned R- 0. That is zoned a higher designation, Downtown Commercial. You have the hospital areas here. Everything else is zoned C-2, all the way from the northern boundaries of the city of Fayetteville all the way to the southern boundaries with those exceptions that I just mentioned. The property to the north of the subject property on the northwest corner of Cleburn and College Avenue was also rezoned to R -O back in 1970. The owner of that property applied to the city Planning Commission in 1990 and the property was rezoned in 1990 to C-1. Our property is very similar to that. It is right across the street. The properties on the northeast corner and the southeast corner, both of those are zoned C-2. We think that our property being zoned commercial is very compatible with that intersection. I wasn't here to hear it but I know that Ms. Warrick probably gave a history of what has taken place on this property and the other properties in this R - O designated area where other people have come before the Planning Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 26 Commission and asked for a rezoning and they were all either turned down or they were withdrawn with the exception of the property immediately to the north of the subject property. I would like to give you another side of that history because they say that history is written by the victor. I would like for you to hear the story of Mr. and Mrs. Nickell I think it is important to remember that private business people in the course of their lives, they can't depend on if you don't work for a large corporation or if you don't work for a government entity of some type, we have to look out for ourselves and we have to somehow provide for our own retirement. One of the best ways to do that if you are a private business man, if your business allows for it, is to own the real estate where your business is located. That is exactly what Mr. Nickell did. He first bought the property in 1958. For those of you who have lived here like I have all your life, everybody remembers Nick's DX. It was an institution and that is what this property was. He bought it in 1958, it was a small service station office and two bays that faced out on College Avenue. He bought that property because it was zoned commercial, and he made a business decision when he did that. He wanted to invest in real estate, he wanted to invest in his business, he was investing in his retirement. Mr. Nickell had a good business and in 1960 he came back to the City of Fayetteville and applied for another building permit so that he could expand his business. He did that based on the property being zoned commercial. The city gave him the right to expand his business and he did that based on it being zoned commercial. He again invested in his real estate, and his business, and his retirement. In 1962 his business was still prospering and he came before the City of Fayetteville again and applied for a building permit, he did that based on the property being zoned commercial. The city granted his building permit request. He made another investment in his real estate and in his business and in his retirement. In 1970 the city pulled the rug out under Mr. Nickell. They rezoned his property R -O and I have already asked if anybody knows why that happened, we don't know. I am not the last word in property values but I do work in that industry so I do have the feel for what different property values are and I think it is safe to say that when you down zoned his property to R -O you took 2/3 of his property value away from him because he can't do what that property was designed and built to do. One of the findings of the Planning office, and this is again quoted from their finding of our application. The existing zoning classification of R -O, Residential Office, does provide development options for this property. While the structure was originally built to house an automotive repair business it could be reused or replaced allowing for an office or similar use which is permitted under the current zoning classification. In other words the city is saying 'Mr. Property Owner, you can buy property based on it being zoned one thing, you can make two more investments in that property based on it being zoned commercial and we can change the rules on you.' Folks, I don't think that is right to do that. Put yourself in their shoes while you are making your decision tonight, think about if that was you. 867 N. College happens to be in the Wilson Park neighborhood. I don't think that there is anything in this room that would argue the fact that that is one of the loveliest neighborhoods in all of Fayetteville. Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 27 I have a lot of childhood memories of Wilson Park, it means a lot to me. I want to congratulate the Wilson Park Neighborhood Association. They have been wonderful to work with, they have been candid, they have been open, they have been receptive to what we wanted to do. We have listened to their concerns and I applaud them for the way that they have handled all of this. I don't know if there is going to be a long line or a short line or what is going to come up but I know that there will be opposition to this tonight. I know that they are going to come up with the same old approaches to being opposed to something. The three things that all of you have heard every time when people come up in opposition to something and it is traffic, it is safety, and it is property values. I don't think those three arguments hold water in this particular instance. If you will look again at the zoning map, if you will remember the red stripe that runs from the north end of Fayetteville bisecting the town all the way through to the south end of Fayetteville, that represents C-2 zoning all along U.S. Highway 71. Most of that is College Avenue, some of that is Archibald Yell and some of it is School Avenue, but all of it represents, with the exception of what I have mentioned earlier, it all represents thoroughfare commercial zoning. That is not just zoning on a map, what is in reality out on College Avenue are commercial businesses. They are on both sides of the street. Guess what is behind all of those commercial businesses all up and down College Avenue, neighborhoods. It is that way in every city in America and it is that way all over Fayetteville. Traffic, safety, and property values are not a good reason to deny this rezoning request. If you will look at some of the handouts that we have given you, they are the ones that are painted green and yellow I believe, that is what the owners have proposed that they improve this property to putting curbed green space at the corner of Cleburn and College Avenue, to putting curbed green space along Cleburn on the north side, and also to put in some curbed green space at the intersection of Pollard and Cleburn. Those sketches that I gave you were done by an engineer but they are very preliminary There is nothing sacred about those drawings. We are putting those forward to you as a suggestion of what the owners are willing to do to help get this approved. At the same item, by making those improvements that we have proposed, we are in fact making the neighborhood safer because it will reduce the width of that drive through there. We have eased the traffic problem because we have cut out the continuous curb cut, we now have specific curb cuts along the line. We have drawn it in such a way that we won't have people backing out directly onto either Cleburn or on Pollard but instead can pull in to parallel parking spaces, back up and then pull straight forward out onto Pollard and Cleburn. What we have done is we have improved the safety, we have improved the traffic issues and I think that because of what we are doing to beautify that corner, we have in our own way increased the property values in the neighborhood. I have been able to receive a copy, because of the freedom of information act, of all of the letters and all the emails that were sent to the Planning office and also to the mayor of people who were in opposition to this rezoning. We also got a copy of the minutes from the Wilson Park Neighborhood Association that listed the names of all the people who were present that day and Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 28 they voted unanimously to oppose this rezoning. The names that we have, we took those, we looked up the street addresses where those people live and with that we were able to go to the Washington County Assessors Office, look and see when each one of those people purchased their home. There were 32 of them that voiced their opposition, most of them at the meeting of the Wilson Park Neighborhood Association. I may have missed one, but if our search was correct, none of those people owned their homes in 1962 when Mr. Nickell was still investing in his property. When they bought their homes that property was there, it had been designed and built as an automotive repair and service station. There was an automotive repair and service station there, it didn't bother them when they built their house or bought their house. Yet, now they want to take the right away from the owners to use the property for what it was designed and built for. I don't think that is fair to Mr. and Mrs. Nickell. The Nickells own property in the Wilson Park neighborhood also and they were there first. Commissioners, you can start the process tonight in my opinion to right a wrong. The applicants aren't coming to you tonight asking for anything new really. They are not asking for any special consideration, they are just asking for you to give them back what the City of Fayetteville took from them in 1970. I want to emphasize again that we have asked for C-2 zoning but are doing so only because we were told that we could not do an automotive repair and service station in C-1. That is the only reason we are asking for C-2 and putting that Bill of Assurance in there that we will only do what is in C-1 plus automotive repair. If there is any way to do this in C-1 they would be more than happy. I know that would make the neighborhood probably happier if we could restrict it that way. I really hope that you will strongly consider our request and thank you for your time. Hoffman: Thank you. Conklin: I just want to clarify one thing. You have heard from the representative of the applicant regarding the issue of C-1 verses C-2 zoning. I think you have every right to discuss that if you feel the need to this evening. However, you can not overrule my interpretation. You can appeal my interpretation to the Board of Adjustment. I have also given that option to Mr. Bob Hill to file a petition with the Board of Adjustment arguing his case with regard to how you classify that use in the C-1 zoning district. However, I have made my interpretation. Once again, this evening you do not have the ability to overrule me and put that into a C-1 zoning district for that Use Unit so I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. Hoffman: Thank you Tim. Hill: Can I make one more comment? Hoffman: Sure. Hill: I am not sure the exact procedure for this but I think it would be my preference Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 29 not to vote on this tonight if we can. We are looking for some direction from you all I think I feel pretty confident that you all aren't going to approve this rezoning for C-2 tonight. I may be wrong. Hoffman. Let me just ask you this, if we don't take any action you have no appeal and it stays in limbo. We could take action and then you could appeal our decision either to the City Council as a denial of your rezoning or to the Board of Adjustment in terms of the interpretation of the zoning category. That would be your choice. Hill: So let you vote and then if in the event you turn my request down. Hoffman: I don't know what the Commissions pleasure as far as tabling this is. Three Commissioners were absent from the last meeting so it was tabled due to the lack of attendance then. We are here now so I would think if it were me I would go forward with it but I am not you so if you want to withdraw it then that is certainly your option. Hill: We have had to table it so many times and there have been so many issues involved in this and we are wanting to do it correctly. I didn't know what my options were as far as starting the ball in the process. I know that I have been in here before when somebody came in for a rezoning and you said "No, you can't get that zoning, why don't you do this." Hoffman: This is a little different because he has made an interpretation about the use category. There have been times when I have been on the Commission when we have used an R -O zone instead of a C-1 zone or something like that because it was more appropriate to the category but we can't override Tim. We could rezone it to C-3 or C-2 or something like that I think. Conklin: Once again, the options that I see are the applicant can ask that the Board of Adjustment, seven volunteer citizens, to agree with you and overrule me. The Planning Commission can file that and ask the Board of Adjustment to agree with you if you said C-1 is an appropriate zoning district and that I am wrong, that is fine. The third option would be the City Council could change the zoning ordinance and change Use Unit 18 classification and deal with it that way. Once again, I just want to make sure that we are following city ordinance and state law with regard to interpretations of the zoning ordinance. Hill: Ok, then forget about what I said about thinking that you all won't approve it. I am confident you will. Hoffman: We will go on from here. Estes: Madam Chair, before Mr. Hill sits down, Mr. Williams as a procedural matter if Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 30 the applicant tables and appeals our Planning Administrator's use determination, then that is permissible at this time. If the Planning Commission votes and it is appealed to the City Council, does that preclude an appeal to the Board of Adjustment regarding Mr. Conklin's determination of the use unit? Williams: I don't know if it would. In fact, I want to ask our City Planner since right now he is zoned R -O and everybody agrees that you can't have an auto repair facility in an R -O, I wonder if he would even have standing to appeal your decision about a C-1 zoning classification when he is not zoned C-1. Would the Board of Adjustment really have anything to decide unless in fact he was zoned C-1, which is the neighborhood commercial. Conklin: I think that Mr. Hill could, or a citizen if they came into my office and I made an interpretation with regard to what is allowed in a certain zone and they disagreed with that, they would be able to appeal my interpretation to the Board of Adjustment. Williams: Even when his property is not zoned that? Conklin. Say Mr. Hill has other properties he is listing that this is very important to him and he disagrees that it really should be in a C-1 zoning district. Once again, I guess that is another interpretation I am making. Williams: Well the City Attorney's office wouldn't stand in your way if you wish to do that. In fact, to directly answer Commissioner Estes, I would not interpret our rules to prohibit him seeking to get that interpretation, regardless of what he does tonight. It might be that the City Planner would disagree with me and he is the one that interprets these ordinances but the City Attorney's office would not bar him in either case. Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Williams. Did you have anything else before we start with public comment? Hill: No. Hoffman: Ok, I will go ahead and take public comment. Can I have a show of hands for people that would like to address the Commission? If you all will come up one at a time and try to avoid repeating each other. I would like to remind everybody that we have got nine items on our agenda tonight and we are only on the third one. Reddig: Thank you very much. My name is William Reddig and my wife Dorothy and I reside at a house at 44 E. Cleburn Street, which is located at the northwest corner of Cleburn and Pollard, which is adjacent or kitty corner to the rear of the 0.29 acres at 867 N. College Ave., the proposed rezoning from R -O, Residential Office Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 31 to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial by the trust of J.C. and Alma Nickell of Rogers. Thank you very much for seeing us tonight. I think the first I heard about this was in March and it has been scheduled to come before you several times but it was pulled back at the last minute there just before Memorial Day and tabled and I certainly hope that we can perhaps move onto a decision tonight. We are retirees who settled in Fayetteville seven years ago and we have lived in our home on the corner for the past three and a half years. We like living there very much and continue to make improvements, including our recent reproofing as Dotty and I stated in our letter to the Commission of April 15, 2002. We also very much like our neighborhood, especially the short tree lined stretch of Cleburn ending at Highland Street, which at present is very quiet all night long and very livable during the daytimes. The former owners of the home liked it so much that they moved just three homes to the west. They have been especially impressed by the many home owner improvements made by our neighbors on Cleburn and throughout the surrounding blocks, especially folks in their 20s and 30s who have bought older homes and then completed major renovations as well as doing great outside maintenance. Nearby businesses are largely of the neighborhood type, doctors and dentists, a flower shop, accountant, interior decorating, graphics, therapists, and others who provide good services and live quiet lives in keeping with the city's intention when it zoned the property in question to R -O, Residential Office. We hope, and a number of neighbors have expressed to me the same hope, that the nearby commercial areas will continue that R -O neighborliness intended when the city established this zoning. We continue, as stated in our April letter, to oppose a rezoning at the corner to C-2. It is a jump that would open the doors to all sorts of uses including sexually oriented businesses, which you know are included in a C-2. I bring with me a reminder from Mark Kinion, head of the Wilson Park Neighborhood Association, who couldn't be here tonight because of a business trip, that the Wilson Park Neighborhood Association in its annual meeting voted unanimously to oppose the rezoning and the association continues to stand by that vote. The applicant I understand owns two adjoining parcels, one the site of a rental house that burned down and after a long period was eventually demolished. The building on the property in question has a very narrow setback. It has long been in zoning non- compliance. When it was operated as a very busy auto repair shop a year or two ago cars were always kept parked at the street, many badly damaged cars were left parked outside for weeks and even months. Wreckers would appear in the middle of the night to leave off damaged cars. Cleburn is a narrow street and with the garages and operation, there are six garages as you probably witnessed, there was always a problem driving up Cleburn to turn on College or coming from College into Cleburn. An up -zoning will bring back and compound the safety and congestion problems a great deal. I appreciate the fact that Bob Hill and the realtors of the Nickle-Hill Group called and sent me data both about a survey outlining curb and green space along with a Bill of Assurance that was proposed from the Nickells proposing to limit the property "to those uses allowed in C-1 zoning plus automotive service repair as defined in Use Unit 17" looking at the Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 32 sketch that he provided me I can see where the raised curb islands and greenery might corral Nick's customer's cars better than the past but the curb would use I believe city right of way and could just prove to create new hazards. I am not sure the engineer or the architect who drew this out really thought out all his placement of the greenery at the corner of College and Cleburn where drivers have to have site lines when turning. I don't understand all the implications of the proposed Bill of Assurance but it seems like the owners owning the other adjoining properties would in affect jump the zoning to C-1, while pulling in an exception for auto repair service shops from Use Unit 17. Doesn't then the neighborhood face a domino rezoning threat? Dotty and I continue to oppose RZN 02-8.00, Nickell rezoning from R -O, Residential Office to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. On the basis of safety, zoning integrity, and continuity, especially in the name of neighborhood and Fayetteville city well being and improvement, we ask that this rezoning application be denied. Hoffman: Thank you Sir. Who else would like to address the Commission on this rezoning? Singleton: My name is Steve Singleton and I live on the corner of Highland and Cleburn. A short way away from the proposed auto repair facility I wouldn't be here tonight if this were still a service station. With a service station cars pull in, they receive the service, the gasoline and then they pull out. The problem has been in the repair aspect of this business. I was one of the ones that complained to the city about cars blocking the view of College Avenue when you try to exit Cleburn onto College. Before I complained to the city I walked in and I talked to the people who were operating Nick's Conoco, explained my concerns and they said basically we have no control over this because people bring their cars in for service and repair, they leave them overnight, we try our best but we can't control it. The problem here is that with all the repair bays, the repair facilities are too large for the existing parking and infrastructure. Basically the facility was overbuilt for the use that it is now receiving, or was receiving. My understanding is that this proposed tenant also operates transmission repair services as well. If that is the case, besides lubes, which would be a day long process or could be, we would also have transmission repair services, which would extend the duration of cars that are out of service, parked on the lot occupying space. For that reason I would ask that you not approve this particular use. Second, I would like to echo the fact that part of the property, the up hill property, all it has ever been is residential or office before the house burned down. Now it is a vacant lot but it is a question of ever changing the zoning of that property, it was always zoned the way it is today and I wanted to make that point because there are still homes and there are still small offices on Pollard that would adjoining that lot. Thank you for your attention. Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Singleton. Is there any other member of the audience who would care to address us now? Seeing none, I will close discussion. Oh, I'm sorry, please come up. Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 33 Singleton: My name is Judy Singleton. I just have a few points that I jotted down. I live on the corner of Cleburn and Highland. One thing that was brought out earlier was the fact than he was a small business owner. I knew Nick when he was up there, my kids used to go up there and get pop so he was part of the neighborhood. One of my objections is that it has been a small business and all along our section of College there is small business, locally owned businesses verses the national chains. My objection is to a national chain that may not be responsive to the community and be part of our neighborhood. The second thing that you can't tell on this map, can I go point and then I'll come back to the mic? Hoffman: Yes. Singleton: This is where the property is. There is curve and road and hill. You can't see the curve and you can't see the hill on the map but just to the north of this property it is straight and then it curves right by the property. Visibility is tough. If I start to slow down to turn onto Cleburn to go to my home I don't dare slow down or I will get rear ended. From the other direction south there is a hill that comes up and because of the curve and the hill one thing that is mentioned, and I haven't seen the proposal for the green space I'm sorry that I haven't seen it but my thought is that at Sassafras when you get to their property there is a nice little green space and some plantings but you can't see around them down that hill. Unless there are pansies or something that is no more than 6" off the ground in the front, we won't be able to see the cars coming up the hill to get onto College again. Curb cuts, I wanted to address quickly. Curb cuts can be more dangerous than completely open area. Again, if people are having to slow down on the curve the chances of rear ending is high. I guess those were all my points. Thank you very much but I do recommend not C-2. Hoffman: Thank you Mrs. Singleton. Is there anyone else that would like to address us before I close public comment? Now I don't see anyone so I will go ahead and bring it back to the applicant and to the Commission for discussion, motions and so forth. I have a question, I guess I will address it first to staff. This is not only a rezoning but it is really a request for redevelopment. I believe I asked the question before but was there a way that we could have looked at this as a conditional use and actually put some conditions of approval with regard to the curb cuts and so forth instead of just seeing a Bill of Assurance and a diagram from the applicant that would show three non -conforming curb cuts on Cleburn Street and one non -conforming on College? Conklin: No, not at this time. Hoffman: The reason I asked that is because in the request for rezoning certainly there is a vested right and a vested interest in having had an existing business. However, it was not operational I guess for the six month period, therefore those non- Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 34 conforming uses and rights were discontinued so we must look at this in my opinion with regard to potential safety hazards and so forth when the business reopens and what it is going to function as. I am having a problem, knowing that intersection as I do, with the three curb cuts along Cleburn Street. Those would not be permitted for any new business in the configuration that they are in and although it is a rezoning we do know that it is basically a request for redevelopment. My question for you then Mr. Hill is could the business operate without the curb cuts on Cleburn? I think it would be better served to have one off of Pollard and one off of College. Hill: That is something that I would have to ask the perspective tenant there. The thing that I have continued to in all my discussions with the residents of the Wilson Park neighborhood, is to not take into consideration just our one perspective tenant. They could disappear tomorrow as we know in real estate. They show up and you go and do all these things that we are doing right now and they may disappear. What I kept stressing to the neighbors there is don't consider this a rezoning for an automotive and repair service but consider it a rezoning. That is what we are here to do. Even though we are trying to do this for that specific tenant, they may not be there. For me to tell you that that specific tenant could operate if we eliminated all the curb cuts along Cleburn, possibly. What we are doing is rezoning the property. Even if the tenants went in they could disappear in five years. Hoffman: Thank you very much. You have answered my question. Ward: For many years I used Nick's place as a place to get my car fixed and get fuel and all that kind of stuff. It has really become kind of an eye sore and it is kind of for the whole community because we have all the traffic up and down North College and it is not good for our community to have a commercial building, or any kind of building setting vacant right on North College, I think it is bad for the whole community. Mr. Singleton pointed out one of the biggest problems, that the building really encompasses the whole lot and it is hard to work with that. If you are going to try to put a tube business in there there is no place to stack cars, there is no way in, there is no way out. The building totally goes from College to Pollard to Cleburn. Unless there is some kind of restructuring that building, I am thinking like the building down the street, the old Rocket Lube Building, it worked very well as a quick lube business but the cars went up the side street, which would be like Cleburn and turned into the back of the building and then came out the front. It worked very well. I don't see the building being used as an office building like it is zoned now. It seems like to me that it should be neighborhood commercial as a zoning. We don't have the right to bulldoze the building and all those types of things. Those are just the thoughts that I have. I would like to see the building being used but it is something that is going to have to be restructured totally. Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 35 Ostner: Mr. Hill, earlier you mentioned the mystery around 1970 or 1971 and it seems a good time to talk about that only because it is so relevant with what Mr. Ward just said. The Planning Office gave us copies of all that discussion, and you all should have that too. What they basically say is that in 1970, this is just historical record, they didn't want it to be C-2 because the future land use pattern is the problem. The relationship of this piece of land, which is your land to the transportation facilities, other land uses, individual site characteristics, and individual owner desires are all conflicting. Weighing these factors with the exception of individual owner desire it would seem that the area should not contain uses which involve frequent traffic movements and uses which would be degrading to adjacent residential property. These types of uses are typically found in the C-2 district as opposed to the R -O district. I believe that really reflects some of my sentiments that even though College is a commercial strip this particular spot is the victim of time. The street has widened after the place was established, the topography has gotten worse with retaining walls I'm sure that came in long after the station was built I would bet. My view is that it is a prime candidate for redevelopment. There is not enough room for parking, I know we are only talking about zoning, but they are tied together because C-2 zoning means a lot more traffic whereas R -O zoning typically does not. It is a lot lower traffic and that is something I wanted to share with you right there. The other issue I wanted to share is that I know this must seem like the rug being pulled out and that the rules have changed in the middle of the game and I'm sure that it seems very unfair but if a different type of business were to approach you, a coffee chain or something that would fit into R -O, this site, I don't know about a coffee chain, this site could be usable and could be very profitable for the owners and for every one involved, for the franchisee but not as it is today. That is really my take on the issue. It needs more than a rezoning to work for the community and for the neighborhood and for the traffic, which has increased dramatically since 1970. I appreciate your query about 1/2 hour ago of wanting information and that is my two bits. There is a lot more information from the rest of the Commission though. Thank you. Hoffman: Thank you Commissioner. Bunch: I live about four blocks south of this location and I live in the 400 block of Washington, which is one block off of North College. It is a situation where we have residential backed up to commercial. I am in a similar situation as some of the neighbors. I have two service stations near the block that I live on, there is one on Lafayette and one on Maple, both on my side of North College. I am also only another block away from where the Rocket Lube was and I don't feel that that has adversely affected my quality of life or my property values. Again, Hwy. 71 Business is basically a commercial strip, has been for many, many years from one end of town to the other and these are businesses. It is a question of buyer beware, the closer you get to College the closer you are going to be to a commercial venture. It is the nature of how the town is. I find it difficult to oppose a commercial zoning. C-2 may be too broad. I would be in favor of a C-1 Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 36 Hoffman: Shackelford: Hoffman. Shackelford: Conklin: Shackelford: Conklin: Shackelford: Hoffman: Roll Call: Hoffman: zoning and with the recommendation that the applicant appeal the decision of Use Unit 18 of whether an automotive repair service, particularly a quick type lube service, whether it should be in Use Unit 17 or Use Unit 18. Most of the functions that are in a rapid lube service traditionally have been in service stations with the exception mentioned earlier with selling gasoline. To me it is a question of interpretation. Again, our Planning Director is offering that this is an avenue that can be explored. That being said, I will move that RZN 02-8.00, rather than C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, that it be C-1, Neighborhood Commercial with a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment that they examine the ruling that places this in Use Unit 17 and that the Commission would recommend that that be changed to Use Unit 18. I have a motion by Commissioner Bunch for C-1 zoning, do I have a second? I will second. I have a second by Commissioner Shackelford, is there additional discussion? Just a question. Tim, I don't know if you can answer this or not, I may be leading us down a bad road here but obviously you recommend denial of a C-2 zoning. Would staff be in favor of a C-1 zoning for this property? No, staff's interpretation is that automotive repair service is specifically listed in C-2 and therefore, it needs to be with the C-2 zoning. Assume that we have no idea what the property is going to be going forward, would you support a C-1 zoning for this property with no adjustments to the use, in other words would you support the C-1 zoning here if there was a buyer coming in that was going to raise this building and build something that would qualify under C-1? The city has rezoned property in the past to C-1 directly across the street. Staff would consider recommending approval for C-1 zoning of this piece of property. Ok, thank you. Is there any additional discussion before we call for the question? Ok, Renee, would you call the roll please? Upon completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 02-8.00 was approved by a vote of 5-3-0 with Commissioners Estes, Hoover, and Ostner voting no. The motion carries with five affirmative votes and three negative votes. Thank you. Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 37 Hill: Thank you very much. Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 38 RZN 02-23.00: Rezoning (Lindsey, pp 519) was submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Lindsey Management Co. for property located north of Old Farmington Road and east of Futrall Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 19.39 acres. The request is to rezone to RMF -18, Medium Density Multi -Family Residential. Hoffman: Fourth on our agenda is RZN 02-23.00, which is a rezoning for Lindsey Development, which was submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton and Tull on behalf of Lindsey Management Company for property located north of Old Farmington Road and east of Futrall Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 19.39 acres. The request is to rezone to RMF -18, Medium Density Multi -Family Residential. Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as a part of this report. Tim, would you like to give us a short report before we hear from the applicant? Conklin: This is a rezoning request for 19.39 acres. The property is currently zoned C-2. They are asking for RMF -18, which allows for multi -family residential units, apartments. This property was the site of what the City Planning Commission did review and look at, which was the National Home Center large scale development. That was never built on this site. This property does adjoin apartments back to the east and the applicant is proposing to downzone it from C- 2, Thoroughfare Commercial to RMF -18, in order to develop additional apartment complexes on this piece of property. That is all I have. Hoffman: Thanks Tim. Is the applicant present and would you like to make a presentation? Lindsey: Thank you madam Chairman. We several years ago bought this property from the National Home Center and it was zoned Commercial and we knew that. At the time the frontage road was two ways and now the frontage road is one way and it is very difficult to deal with the concept of commercial there. We propose to do a project that will have a substantial lake that will be close to the bypass side and it will have fountains and we think it will be a very nice view of what we build here. In real simple language, when we went out there I thought who would be negative to this? It is a total downzone and I really feel that I need to apologize to people that I have considered friends for a long time and that is the Barnes, Howard and Barbara. In that sense, they are on my immediate north there, and I did not perceive their thoughts that they would like their property maybe to be commercial and I am sure they will speak to that. My thought process is real simple. It is a down zoning. We still have access to Old Farmington Road for the entrance into ours to get back toward Hwy. 62 the way it is left but as far as the bypass is concerned it is a difficult commercial turn. When a road goes one way, in my opinion for whatever it is worth, I think they basically destroyed the potential for commercial in any direction off of the immediate intersection. There might be some type commercial that could go there in the future. We wanted to use the land and therefore, we felt like that this was a fair and good way of doing Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 39 this, that this was a downzone would be in keeping with what would be acceptable to the city and we appreciate the Planning office interpretation of that and we look forward to being able to use the property for that purpose. Thank you all very much. Hoffman: Thank you. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address us on this rezoning? Please come forward and tell us who you are. Schaper: I am Len Schaper, 1940 Pratt Drive. I have a philosophical and long range issue with the proposed rezoning because right now on the 2020 land use plan this area is designated part of regional commercial. It is a major commercial node that it is indicated on the land use plan at the intersection of 6`h Street and the bypass. Is it a major commercial node right now? No. It is a minor commercial node perhaps but we have not seen yet the impact of the construction of I-540 on southern Washington County south of Fayetteville. In other words, the land south of Fayetteville has not had time to develop since the completion of that roadway. It will certainly develop because now it is a lot more accessible to Fayetteville than it was in the past. The positioning of a major commercial node here at this intersection, which is one of the few intersections where you could have a major commercial node, is very important for the economic health of Fayetteville in the future. From my time on the City Council, and certainly you all know, that the city lives by the sales tax. You also know that in the last few years the demands on city services are going up and the sales tax revenue is not keeping up with the demands on city services so we have had to go into reserves in the city to make ends meat on the budget. We need our commercial areas in order to fund the city services that are expected by the citizens of Fayetteville. We will need them more in the future. The fact that this land is not developed now and it may be a bit inconvenient to develop doesn't deny the fact that the folks who live south of Fayetteville, just as we relied on folks from all over Northwest Arkansas in the past to come to Fayetteville to shop, we are hoping that in the future that development will occur south of us along that bypass, those folks will still come to Fayetteville to shop. If they do, this is the first place they are going to come to is this major regional area at this intersection of 6th Street and the bypass. When we think long term about the economic health of our city, I am worried that if we let this area become residential that this is a drain on our resources instead of an addition to our resources. You know land at commercial nodes like that is like waterfront property. There is only so much of it. We are not going to get another interstate highway through the city of Fayetteville. The land that is along it, the land that is very accessible to it is a precious resource that we have to guard and just turning it over because of a short term concern that it may not be as convenient to develop as other land, in the long term may be a very serious problem for us given the long term economics and how we support our city. We know that residential does not pay for itself in terms of city services. The cost of those services is born by the commercial because of our reliance on sales tax and I think we need to keep all of our opportunities open to maximize our sales tax Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 40 revenue. It is being taken away because we are seeing increasing commercial development in Benton County north of us, look at the building permits. We have to keep our options open here and I am not saying we'll develop in the next five years, it may be ten, it may be fifteen, it may be twenty, but that is what long term land use and regional planning is about. Please don't foreclose our options to keep our economy healthy by turning this over to a residential development when we will need that commercial in the long term. Thank you. Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Schaper. Is there anybody else that would like to address us on this rezoning? Archer: Julian Archer 2115 Markham Road in Fayetteville. I would like to give you somewhat of an expanded view of the question. What you are asked to do here is to rezone a certain section. If you do rezone it to this multi -family usage that is before you, you have then created a terrible dilemma for the property owned by Mr. And Mrs. Barnes just to the north of it. Some 9.4 acres, I believe that Mr. Barnes has provided you with a map showing that. I happen to own the property just to the north of Mr. And Mrs. Barnes, a 20 acre tract. The Barnes also own a land locked triangle along Futrall. If this should be rezoned the property just to the north is R-1 but it doesn't really make it feasible for this to be R-1 and so you are going to have coming before you in the coming years, maybe not while you are Commissioners but the city of Fayetteville will having come before it the question of what to do with this property. It certainly will not be handled as R-1, it will undoubtedly be some kind of multi -family project. Then the pressure will be on us as to how the property should be handled and whether to keep it R-1. We have no R-1 plans there at all. We certainly would like to just see it as woods although we know it would certainly be unattractive to have an apartment complex there. What I would like to call upon the Planning Commission to do is to table this motion today, ask the city staff to come back with a full fledged plan. Mr. Lindsey has very appropriately pointed out the traffic problems there, and they are very real. No one, if you add these 300 plus units in there and then on the Barnes' property to the north there could be another 150 to 180 units in there if that is rezoned sometime in the future, which undoubtedly it will be. There is no street plan that is before you. You as the Planning Commission need to see how all of that traffic is going to be handled, how that residential traffic is going to be handled, how that commercial traffic is going to be handled. You might be wondering, and I want to bring this before you, have I been approached about this for sale. Yes I have. This is another factor for consideration. You do have, as Mr. Schaper pointed out some of the prime commercial real estate in Fayetteville. The fact that it has not sold in the last four years certainly is very, very difficult for Mr. Lindsey but who would have predicted that that drive-in on the road to Farmington would've become a Wal-Mart Supercenter, that that property would've gone through that evolution. I think all of you have lived in Fayetteville long enough to see that areas that you never thought would develop the way they did have indeed developed and developed with amazing rapidity so I think it Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 41 would behoove you and the City of Fayetteville to ask for a full scale plan for traffic. Also, you keep repeating, not you as the members, but the Planning staff repeats that there is very land left for this type. I think that what would be ideal in this situation would be to see some kind of commercial in here followed by residential. This is going to be the first view of Fayetteville for many people and if other land sales should take place, maybe you should consider not simply rezoning this area but rezoning at the same time areas to the north to have a comprehensive plan for this. If there is enough land, say 40 acres, and Mr. Lindsey and I have talked about this, that you may even have one of the golf course developments as opposed to the standard apartment development with the golf course ringing this area. That would make certainly a much more attractive site for people coming to Fayetteville for the first time than simply just apartments. Those are some of the concerns that I have as a nearby property owner. Thank you. I would also like to say on behalf of Mr. Lindsey that certainly his apartments are very, very well maintained, well managed units that you don't have some of the rundown appearances that other apartment units have and we know that this is an opportunity to create both a superb commercial area and perhaps a good multi -family area in this gateway to the city of Fayetteville. Thank you. Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Archer. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address us on this rezoning tonight? Seeing no one I will go ahead and bring it back to the applicant and to the Commission for further discussion. Lindsey: Thank you. One of the things that I would want to point out that we are not rezoning this whole tract. You have Sines body shop, you have the bank on that corner south and then north there we are keeping six acres of this and then we are moving to the R-2. It is consistent with the general planning of zoning commercial at the intersections and moving away and zoning R-2 as you go up the street. Again, I point out that it is a one way street. If you go on further north the land starts getting very steep and difficult to build on. I just see it as being a use for this land mainly because of the one way road and that is not going to change. They had a little meeting and a hearing and all of the sudden they just said that is the way it is going to be. Well, nobody got to vote on it, nobody even had a chance to talk about it. People from the city were there and weren't for it as I understood it. The Highway Department just said that is the way it is going to be. We know that's not fair, we know it restricts the commercial use and from my point I am leaving approximately six acres on the corner and then we will buffer it to residential and go on with the land use plan, which I think includes R-1 past our land. That is the point I would make. Thank you all. Hoffman: Thank you. Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 42 Motion: Estes: I agree with most of what Mr. Schaper said with a couple of exceptions. This property is removed from the commercial node. It is a piece of property that is bordered on the west by Futrall Drive with one way access and the only remaining ingress and egress to the property is Root Avenue and Stone Street. I bet that if we asked Mr. Lindsey he would tell us that he would've much preferred that it remain a C-2 use but because of some action that was taken that was outside of his control that is not possible so that leaves us with the proposed down zoning. The proposed zoning change from C-2 to RMF -18 from the city of Fayetteville's future land use plan, which shows C-2. The surrounding area is residential and that is being consistent with the land use plan. The proposed zoning will downgrade from a C-2 to a RMF -18. This will amount to considerable less traffic than the commercial use such as a large retail center. These are some of the reasons that at this time I would move that we forward to the City Council with a do pass recommendation of RZN 02-23.00. Hoffman: I have a motion by Commissioner Estes. Allen: I will second. Hoffman: I will give the second to Commissioner Allen. Shackelford: Just one point real briefly. In regard to the comments that allowing this multi- family development would have an adverse affect on future developments of commercial in this node, I am in disagreement with that statement. I look towards just north of here, the comer of Wedington and I540 is an area that there is currently commercial development going on two of the four corners and we have apartment complexes on the other two corners so I think that I am in support of this and think that it won't in any way affect the future development of this as a commercial node. Hoffman: Thanks Commissioner. I would like to add to that statement that my reading of the 2020 Plan we do have mixed uses encouraged even though they may not be accurately shown as the designated land use on this particular area that I would like to dry an analogy between this development and what we just approved a moment ago at CMN for a multi -family use in a commercial district. We down zoned there and in my view we are making what could be a "big box development" more attractive by mixing the uses and providing some break in that heavy commercial. For that reason, I will support the motion as well. Tim, did you have something to say? Conklin: I just wanted to respond to a couple of comments. In ten years I have seen three shopping centers struggle at that intersection. I have seen two grocery stores that are no longer there today. One is Food 4 Less, which went with Wal-Mart and Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 43 then Marvin's IGA. I am very pleased that the Planning Commission recently saw the Westlake Shopping Center renovations going forward and we did rezone some of that to C-2 with that commercial node and I think that we will see some nice new businesses going into that shopping center. What I would hope, because that is an entrance into the city of Fayetteville, and what concerns me is that when you do drive into Fayetteville and you look at the Food 4 Less shopping center and you look at the old Wal-Mart shopping center it would be nice to see those redeveloped in the future with that commercial node to serve the citizens of Fayetteville and the visitors to Fayetteville. I think that there is an opportunity here also if this is rezoned by the City Council, down zoned to RMF -18 that these shopping centers could be redeveloped and could be an asset to the city of Fayetteville because right now I think that they are somewhat lacking as an entrance into the city of Fayetteville. Also, we did recently approve a 25 acre commercial development Final Plat up at Wedington and I 540 and the amount of acreage that you see with Marvin's, the old Food4Less, and the old Wal-Mart, I think there is enough acreage there that in the future redevelopment, changing those uses from a Wal-Mart setup warehousing situation and an optical lab that we could eventually get some kind of retail back at that intersection. I just want to make that point, thank you. Hoover: I have a couple of questions for staff. Could you just explain first of all how are we supposed to view the 2020 plan? Is this a guideline? Second, how are some of these land use applications chosen like for instance on the nodes, give a little bit of history about our 2020 plan and how we should view it. Conklin: Sure. On the commercial nodes and what you see on your 2020 land use plan are those areas that were existing as commercially zoned pieces of property and that was due the fact that during the development of the 2020 plan the City Council and Planning Commission stated a desire, a policy not to expand commercial all up and down all the highways, Crossover Road, Hwy. 265, I 540 so commercial was limited to those nodes and I think we have done a good job at the city to limit commercial to those nodes if you look at Hwy. 45 and Hwy. 265, if you look at our other intersections. That is how that was determined. With regard to, I am going to go into the regional commercial part, because we did assign a designation for regional commercial and that is of course up with the Northwest Arkansas Mall and land surrounding the mall, in particular the CMN II development, 309 acres estimated at 2.7 million square feet of retail just in the CMN development. We have seen about three to four hundred thousand square feet since those Final Plats have been approved. Just around the mall we saw 1.6 million square feet of retail in the last ten years be developed including an expansion of the mall to around 900,000 square feet from about 500,000 square feet so that really has become a regional retail center for Fayetteville up at the Northwest Arkansas Mall and that area. Those are the differences in the type of commercial that is shown on the land use plan. There is a recognition that we do have a regional commercial area and then we do have commercial areas that serve Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 44 Ward: the city of Fayetteville. I too agree with Mr. Schaper about taking away our commercial land and making it more for residential is not really the right step to go with taking away the sales tax potential and so on but it is kind of like the property directly across the road from this to the west there are two or three motels that we have over there. You can't get there. They struggle nightly to meet payroll and so on because of the changing of the roads out there as far as one way. I have had to pick people up out there and I couldn't get to the motel. I wasn't smart enough to get there. It has become a problem with the way that the State has changed that making those one way. I do think that Mr. Lindsey does do a great job on landscaping and what his apartment complexes look like. I think they look great along I 540, there are three or four complexes already that have been built recently along there that have become, I think they look fantastic compared to what could be along there. I will support this although there is some relevance to what Mr. Schaper has to say about taking away our commercial nodes for residential. Hoffman: Is there any further discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 02-23.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Hoffman: Thank you Renee. The motion carries unanimously. Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 45 RZN 02-24.00: Rezoning (Nelms, pp 209) was submitted by Phil Hagen of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Nelms LLP for property located west of I-540 and east of Hwy 112. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 27.81 acres. The request is to rezone to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Hoffman: The fifth item on our agenda tonight is RZN 02-24.00 which was submitted by Phil Hagen of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Nelms LLP for property located west of I-540 and east of Hwy 112. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 27.81 acres. The request is to rezone to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included in our report. Tim, would you care to give us a more detailed report? Conklin- Sure. This is a requested rezoning for 27.81 acres from A-1 to C-2. This is a piece of property that is located north of the existing Landers Auto Park. On the east side it is bounded by I 540 and to the west you have the 112 Drive In Theater. The request is for C-2, it is consistent with the General Plan 2020. The proposal is to rezone it and then they do have a large scale development currently in process that they are working on with regard to expanding the Landers Auto Park out there and that will be coming to you in the next few weeks. Thank you. Hoffman: Thanks Tim. Is the applicant here and would you like to make a presentation or answer questions? Hagen: I will just answer questions. I am Phil Hagen with Crafton, Tull & Associates. I don't have a presentation and I would be happy to answer any questions anybody has. Hoffman: I will go ahead and take public comment and then we will get back to you. Is there any member of the public here that would wish to address us? Moorman: I am Barbara Moorman, Finger Road. I am concerned about three aspects of this. One is of course the wetland situation and another is the drainage, which I want to say seems rather complicated to me. What I have right here is from the Engineering Depaitment's files on the original Nelms development. It shows four different drainage basins. The third thing that I am concerned about, I might as well say right now is the fact that there are two things going on at once here. One is the proposal to rezone, and that is what you are considering, I understand that but there is also the Large Scale Development in process, as Tim just said. I think what concerns me is the complexity of the various drainage basins that are shown on this map in combination with the fact that there is not a drainage plan shown for the combined two projects, the rezoning and whatever will come of that and the 900,000 sq.ft. parking lot that is projected for the other parcel, which is a seven acre parcel. I think it is not just a question of the drainage not being worked out but the wetland determination, as I understand it, is not yet available Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 46 Estes: or has not yet been completed and I believe if I understand correctly, that that is a combination of these two projects. In other words, the wetland determination is being done I don't know by whom. I understand it is by someone who was hired by the owner. The wetland determination will be for the two combined so it seems to me that you need to have the wetland determination before you I would remind you that in the case of the, I call it Benedict property, that is not really what it was I don't think but it was last year sometime. Property just north of this which was rather boggy and was proposed for development. You all requested that there be a wetland determination done on that property before the property was rezoned and it wasn't even as complex as this because there was only one project, one rezoning in front of you at the time I think there are three problems, one is the wetland determination, one is the drainage, and the third is the fact that there really are two things going on even though there is only one that you are having to consider. I want to point out that there is talk in the other project of re - channeling the drainage, which currently goes into Clabber Creek, which of course has something to do however indirectly, with the B and T Park to take that drainage, if not all of it then at least some of it, and channel it up toward the north. Now if you are channeling that toward the north you are going to have to know what lies up to the north and we come right back to the notion of the wetland determination. Those are just some things that I hope you will consider and I think what I am saying is that I hope you will table this as you did in the case of the property to the north of this last year and ask for more information on wetland and drainage. Thank you. Thank you Barbara. Is there any other member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this requested rezoning? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the applicant for rebuttal. Hagen: We have had a preliminary wetlands determination done. There are wetlands on that land in the middle of the 28 acres. It is the intent of the applicant to put that aside in a nature preserve. There are really only two areas of this 28 acres that we intend to develop, about two acres of the south portion of it and potentially the four or five acres of the north with the center piece being put in preserve. A lot of those issues and a lot of the drainage issues probably will be better addressed at the large scale where we have the detail in front of us but all of that has been submitted to the engineers. I have forwarded the wetland determinations to Mr. Conklin. I am not sure if he has received the faxes or had a chance to look over them. It was just today that I actually sent one of them and Friday I sent the other one. Conklin: I have the one that was sent on Friday. I don't think I received the one today. I think the statement that you just made, there are wetlands on the site, that is true. I will just read a quote here "Based on these observations it is our initial opinion that wetlands are likely to be present within an estimated area from three to six acres in the central to north parts of the proposed development tracts. See exhibit Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 47 one." I won't go into the three or four page letter but yes, there are wetlands on the site based on this consultant. Hagen: There are wetlands and it is a beautiful piece of property with beautiful trees on it and it is the intent of Mr. Nelms to put that aside in a preserve with the south two to three acres for future expansion of Landers and then the north for potentially, it depends on how the property to the north develops, some future development just for the north four or five acres. Conklin: I would just like to remind the Commission for those Commissioners that didn't go out to CMN II development, that is a piece of property that is zoned C-2, had wetlands. We toured what the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers required the developer to do to protect and mitigate wetlands in that development. I bring this up because yes, we are aware there are wetlands. There is also floodplain, floodway and those regulations, city regulations and those state and federal regulations will have to be met for any development of this site. I just wanted to bring that up. Thank you. Estes: Thank you Mr. Conklin. Hagen: She is correct in saying that this is a complicated piece of property because there are those issues but we are dealing with all of those with the Large Scale Development plan. Estes: Thank you Phil. I will now bring the matter back to the Commission for discussion or motions. Ward: According to our facts the property is on our 2020 plan and all of our future plans as being regional commercial and it is pretty much bordered by regional commercial on all sides. This is strictly a rezoning, it is not a large scale or anything else. I will go ahead and recommend that we approve the RZN 02-24.00 for this 27.81 acres. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to forward to the City Council with a recommendation of approval RZN 02-24.00 is there a second? Shackelford: I will second. Estes: We have a second. Is there any discussion? Ostner: I realize we are not developing this right now but in the change to C-2 there is a concern with the drive-in and the light pollution or light. If it is rezoned it is going to have to be dealt with one way or the other because the uses conflict, the night time of the drive-in and the night time advertisement lights. I know it is real early in the process but is that going to be part of the development? Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 48 Hagen: That has already been a part of our consideration and we are going to leave a stand of trees that is wider in width than the stand of trees that are between the drive-in and the existing dealership so really the situation will not be any worse than it is with the existing dealership. We are further away with the new phases of the dealership than we are with the existing dealership. Conklin- We did receive a telephone call on the 9th from a Jimmy Terry for 112 Drive In. He did come to our office earlier that week and did express concerns with regard to light. The message is Nelms rezoning, stated that he wanted to withdraw his objection comments and state that he was now for the project. He says he spoke with Mr. Nelms last night and he explained what he was proposing and to call him if we had any questions. Lighting is something that we will address during the large scale development review and we do have our outdoor lighting ordinance going to the Council fairly soon. Estes: Allen: Thank you Mr. Conklin We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Shackelford to forward to the City Council with a do pass recommendation RZN 02-24.00 is there any further discussion? I know this isn't the large scale development but I wonder since we do know how this property will be developed, are we thinking about in the 2020 Plan and regional nodes, do we consider things like large masses of asphalt and the kind of development that we know will be in that one area when we decide to rezone? Conklin: Hopefully, and maybe we need to take a look at our regulations, but this is in the Overlay District and it does require landscaping and minimum percent open space on the property, 25%. Hopefully through our regulations we can mitigate some of the impacts of just paving over every square inch of Fayetteville through those parking lot landscaping, commercial design standards, and overlay district standards. Allen: Those commercial design standards have changed since the original development? Conklin: No. Estes: Is there any further discussion? Hoffman: I just want to make the comment that as far as this being a C-2 zoning I can see that that is appropriate but I do want to state that I do have reservations if it is a continuation of what we approved before. One for the light pollution and then the other was also the landscaping. I want to say that I am for the zoning but I guess I want to give the applicant warning that as far as when the large scale development comes through that they be very cautious and aware that there are more issues. Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 49 Allen: I have the same concerns. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Shackelford to forward to the City Council with a do pass recommendation RZN 02-24.00 is there any further discussion? Is there any further discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 02-24.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote, thank you. Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 50 RZN 02-25.00: Rezoning (Sage House, pp 564) was submitted by Erin Rushing on behalf of Sage House, Inc. for property owned by the City of Fayetteville and located at 1033 Huntsville Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 4.22 acres. The request is to rezone to RMF -12, Moderate Density Residential. Hoffman: Item six on our agenda tonight is RZN 02-25.00, for Sage House. It was submitted by Erin Rushing on behalf of Sage House, Inc. for property owned by the City of Fayetteville and located at 1033 Huntsville Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 4.22 acres. The request is to rezone to RMF -12, Moderate Density Residential. Tim, can you give us an update on this one please? Conklin: Yes. This is a rezoning request from RMF -12 from R-1. The Sage House is a non-profit organization for short term transitional housing. This is located off of Huntsville Road on the south side. It originally was planned for up on Deane Solomon Road on part of the land that we purchased for the Wilson Springs Business Park. However, now this has been relocated down to this location. The rezoning is required because it is an apartment type residential use. Hoffman. Thanks Tim. Is the applicant here and would you like to give us a presentation please? Weatherton: Lance Weatherton with Miller, Boscus, Lack Architects. We are prepared to make a presentation but at this point we are at schematic design. Basically since we have been accepted at the site we would just like to answer any questions that you have for a rezoning at this point. Hoffman: That will be fine. Is there any member of the public that would address us on this rezoning? Seeing none, I will go ahead and bring it back to the Planning Commission and to the applicant for further discussions or motions. Estes: I would recommend that we approve and forward to the full City Council with a recommendation of do pass RZN 02-25.00. Hoffman: I have a motion for approval by Commissioner Estes, do I have a second? Allen: I second. Hoffman: I have a second by Commissioner Allen. Is there any further discussion? Bunch: Yes. I realize that this is just a rezoning but I would like to weigh in at this time on a previous issue that we had in this neighborhood where there were questions concerning the availability of parks as we were allowing some residential subdivisions to grow and the Parks Board had recommended taking money in lieu of land dedication. This particular area was discussed at that time as a good Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 51 potential site for some parks to service the area that is bounded by Happy Hollow Road, 156 Street, and Huntsville Road. I just wanted to make a comment at this time that it would be good when we see this come through as an LSD to consider whether or not the 4.22 acres is sufficient because there will be a land dedication or money in lieu of land dedication at that time for the Parks Department and this would be a very good opportunity to address the situation where we are sufficient in parks in this area. Weatherton: I would like to address that. With the schematic design phase the way we have the building situated if you are familiar with this site it is a pie shaped site and with the nature of Sage House being a transitional living facility, security is a big issue. We have located the building approximately 400' off Huntsville Road leaving that remaining land available for possible park area and that is our focus at this point with the schematic design for Sage House. We also are working on a design for 16 units expandable up to 32. Even with the expansion we will not be encroaching into the 400' setback from Huntsville Road. We will be moving from the current position of the building to the east so we have taken into consideration. A lot is dictated because of the contour of the land and the nature of the facility to leave the remaining part of the land from our facility to Huntsville for park area. We will take that advisement into consideration. Hoffman: Thank you very much. Is there any further discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 02-25.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Hoffman: Thank you the motion carries unanimously. Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 52 CUP 02-23.00: Conditional Use (NE United Pentecostal Church, pp 251) was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company for property located at 533 E. Appleby Road. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 1 acre. The request is for an addition to an existing building. Hoffman: The seventh item on our agenda tonight is a conditional use, CUP 02-23.00 for the Northeast United Pentecostal Church submitted by Mr. Milholland of Milholland Company for property located at 533 E. Appleby Road. The property is zoned R- 2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately one acre. The request is for an addition to an existing building. There are eight conditions of approval. Staff, do we have signed conditions? Conklin. No. Hoffman: The first condition is Pave and stripe the existing gravel parking lot. 2) Planning Commission approval of large scale development to include a review of Commercial Design Standards requirements. 3) Planning Commission approval of reduction of building separation requirements as set forth in § 163.23 Nonresidential Uses in Residential Districts. 4) Signs shall meet the requirements of Chapter 174 Signs in the UDO. 5) Any proposed outdoor lighting shall be fully shielded and directed downward. The light at the residential property line to the south shall not exceed 1.5 foot candles when measured 3' above grade. 6) The parking lot shall have arrows showing the direction of traffic. 7) A minimum of 50 parking spaces shall be provided. 8) Construct a 5' wide sidewalk through the new Portland cement driveway approach. Replace a small section of existing sidewalk that has deteriorated. An inspection is required by the Sidewalk Division prior to placing the concrete. Is the applicant present? Mel, before you get started, Tim, do you have anything that you would like to say before their presentation? Conklin: With regard to condition number two, staff would like to remove that condition at this time and we will base whether or not it goes through Large Scale Development or administrative approval based on the ordinance. We are still having some trouble determining if it ever came through Large Scale Development before. It states that the project is about one acre and we just need to do some more research on that. I understand that there are some concerns with regard to Commercial Design Standards and the addition matching the existing building with the E.F.I.S. or dryvit on the west and east sides of the building and I think that is something to discuss this evening with regard to the Conditional Use. I don't want to require them to go through Large Scale Development if it is not required and at this time I just can't make that determination. Hoffman: If they are not required to go through Large Scale Development then they would merely be circumventing the Planning Commission. They would still need to Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 53 Conklin: Hoffman: Milholland: Hoffman: Milholland: comply with all of the ordinances and Commercial Design Standards. Yes. You basically have a church at this location with a parking lot that was issued a permit to build a parking lot with the sub base in, curb and gutter in for the exterior boundaries and landscape islands. They are far along in the development of this site. This is not just a vacant piece of property at this time which causes me some concern when we talk about requiring them to go through Large Scale Development since we already issued permits with regard to the parking lot and parking lot landscaping and setbacks so I am trying to be fair to Mr. Milholland and his client and not require something that we have issued permits on in the past. Thanks Tim. Just a little bit of history, the present assembly that is there now, which we have with us tonight Pastor Baughman with the Assembly have been there twenty one years. This particular building was constructed by them to replace the old one. They got their building permit in 1990 and built it in the next year thereafter. Prior to their existence another Assembly was there. They have been there twenty-one years, but prior to their existence another Assembly, I think it was called New Testament Tabernacle or something, occupied that site for a number of years. I am not sure if was ten or twenty or whatever, but it was a church without a parking lot as far as paved, curbed and guttered, it was just gravel. The existing facility they have which is about ten or twelve years old now was constructed with a building permit from the city of Fayetteville. As far as going through the Large Scale at that time, I don't think it did. I did the work for them, I don't recall if it did but I know that we did go and they got a building permit for it. I think it is just a little bit less than an acre as far as the actual size of the property. They had plans at that time when they built the Assembly, which that is the sanctuary they have right now and a few classrooms to build another part later on. This is what they are coming back to do. They are not increasing the size of their seating capacity. Parking lot with curb, gutter, and base put into it, we got it approved through the Engineering Department about a year and a half ago and they have constructed up to the point of not having a surface yet until they get the fellowship hall and some additional classrooms. This part that we are wanting to add on right now is not increasing the Assembly capacity, it is only providing a fellowship hall and a couple of classrooms. Parking will be adequate for the Assembly. Thank you Mr. Milholland. Is there any member of the audience that would like to discuss this? I don't see anybody,. I couldn't hear the conditions but if the conditions were the distance from adjoining homes, we provided a letter today to Tim's office, the Planning office. Do you have a copy of this? Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 54 Commission: Milholland: Hoffman: Estes: Conklin: Estes: Conklin: Estes: Hoffman: Conklin: Hoffman: Conklin: Hoffman: Yes we do. We asked the adjoining owners to sign off and the older home to the west, they have a good relationship with them and as you can read, they did not sign off because the younger part of the family asked them not to but for those in the rear, they did sign off that it was ok. The part that they are proposing at this point in time will be further away from the house than what is existing. Thank you. We didn't have any public comment so I will go ahead and bring it back to the Commission for discussions and motions. Mr. Conklin, are we to consider Commercial Design Standards in considering this Conditional Use request? We have considered Commercial Design Standards in the past with regard to churches. Yes, I would like the Commission to consider that since it is before you and a Conditional Use talks about the issue of compatibility. So is it staffs desire that we do consider Commercial Design Standards as we consider this Conditional Use request? That is correct. With that said, let me make some general comments if I may. The proposed elevations that we have depict a square, box like structure with large, blank, unarticulated wall surfaces and those are two of the very things that we are to avoid in our Commercial Design Standards. I have got a real problem with this. Can I interrupt or continue your discussion? On that same thing Tim, I would like to ask what threshold and what percentage of reconstruction or additions to an existing site trigger Commercial Design Standards for the new construction and what then also would be required to remediate anything on the existing structure if any? The following site development standards shall apply when either new development or expansion of 25% of the existing building square footage occurs. Does that mean that if they are expanding more than 25%, which I assume this is, is it more than 25% of the area? Yes. Does that mean they have to make the whole building comply? Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 55 Conklin: In the past we have worked with applicants to utilize our Commercial Design Standards to get compliance with those standards. You say make the entire building comply. I am not sure how far you as a Commission should go on that. Really the facade that is most visible is up front along Appleby Road. This addition is in the back of the building, which is not very visible from the street. Our Commercial Design Standards state that elements to avoid or minimize are unpainted concrete; precision block walls; square box like structures; metal siding which dominates the main facade; large, blank, unarticulated wall surfaces; large, out of scale signs with flashy colors. Once again, that is what we are working with. I would agree with Mr. Estes that it is a box like building and it does have unarticulated wall surfaces, the existing building that you see today. Estes: The north elevation would be visible from Appleby. The east elevation is going to also be visible from Appleby is it not Mel? Milholland: The existing structure presently faces Appleby Road. I suppose if you looked across the parking lot at an angle you would see the east section of the building at this point in time. The proposed extension of the building would be on further back, you wouldn't see it as easy and the west side of the building would be hidden by the trees and the residents on the west side. Conklin: I have a question for Mel. I kind of find it interesting that there are no windows on this building. I don't see any windows anywhere. Is there a reason you don't put windows in this type of building? Milholland: I think Pastor Baughman could probably give you his idea of where he got that from. He patterned this after a larger choice down in Louisiana I think in a smaller scale, but it is not, I think on your detail we show you that the outside of the building is dryvit. His preference was not to have windows. Conklin: When I went out there and looked at it, there is not one window on any side of this building. Milholland: Is that required on the building? Conklin: Well, we are going back to Commercial Design Standards and I wasn't sure if windows were something that you can not have as part of this church or if windows are something that you could add into this to help break up the facade of the building and make it more attractive on Appleby Road and on the east side. That is why I am asking the question. Milholland: He can speak for the Assembly and his opinion. Again, I think that their preference at the time that they built this building was what you see out there now, which I don't know is a negative appeal to the public. No one has complained about it I don't think. That is all I can say, it has nothing to do with Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 56 the assembly, it is just the way that hey wanted to build at the time and I prefer to duplicate that on the back where it would look like a unified building. Baughman: I am Arnold Baughman, Pastor of Northeast United Pentecostal Church. The question at hand about windows, we have no problem with having some windows put in. In our original design of our building that we presently have, before we built that we were broken into and had a lot of electronic equipment and instruments stolen and so for the back part of the church especially, we thought if we could eliminate some opportunities of coming in we would be better served. Our present facility has a huge front entry way that is all glass and it is about 22'x18' high that allows a lot of sunshine to come through into the foyer as you come into the sanctuary but we would have no problems putting some windows in, especially if we could put them up higher say the second story area so that they would be less accessible. We had a lot of problems with transient people coming across from the mobile home park, that was prior to the building of the residential area behind the church. That was our original thinking, I wanted to answer that question. Hoffman: Thank you very much. My thoughts on Commercial Design Standards are when we are looking at an existing building and trying to mitigate some of the plain walls and so forth and particularly when we are dealing with a church with possibly a low construction budget, could we look at putting in things in the front of the building that would enhance the attractiveness of the site from the road and spend the money that way rather than putting things in the back that aren't going to be seen. That is my suggestion and I would think that Tim, if this goes through an administrative process, it is not going to come back to the Planning Commission, so what kind of direction are you looking for from us? How specific do we need to get? Conklin: I can handle it at the administrative level. I think I understand what your concerns are and what you would like to see in the front. Hoffman: I have just voiced mine, let me give everybody else a chance here. Hoover: I have a question. Tim, can you site some examples of where we have had additions of over 25% where we have asked to rework some of the existing building? Warrick: Steinmart. Conklin: I can't think of too many others. Hoover: Can you think of some that we specifically have not? Conklin: We had the church on Rolling Hills, Trinity, over by Blockbuster. Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 57 Hoffman - Conklin: Hoover: Conklin - Motion: Allen: Hoffman: Ostner: Hoffman: Shackelford: Hoffman: Bunch: Conklin: We did require some things on that, I remember that. That was an addition but the front was already. This is a fairly unique situation, I haven't seen too many churches with this architectural type design so it hasn't been a big issue with a church to redo the front of a building. This is more typical of other type of commercial I guess. Can you think of any commercial? Here is what I would like to do. Administratively work with them. I was out there earlier today too and I don't think they have a sign on the front of their building, maybe a sign, maybe a cross, some architectural features like that could help identify the building also. I feel like the design standards are hard to know where to begin to suggest so it was my thought that perhaps we could table this and give them an opportunity to see what they might be able to come up with. I will move that we table CUP 02- 23.00. We have a motion to table by Commissioner Allen, do I have a second? I will second. I have a second by Commissioner Ostner. Is there any further discussion? I am not going to vote in favor of tabling this issue. I have confidence in Tim and his staff's ability to handle this administratively. I feel that we can give him some direction, what we are looking for as a Commission, and that he is capable of designing it to those directions. I will vote against the motion to table at this point. Ok, is there any further discussion? In the background information we have some comments on a 68' setback and 100' being required and I think that was made in conjunction with a Large Scale Development coming through. If this does not come through as a Large Scale Development, is there any action that we need to take concerning the setback for the recreational facility? I would like the Planning Commission to make that decision this evening as part of this Conditional Use because it states the Planning Commission has to grant that setback reduction. Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 58 Hoffman: If we vote other than tabling it, yes. Right now I have on board a motion to table it. Is there any further discussion on that motion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to table was denied by a vote of 4-4-0 with Commissioners Shackelford, Bunch, Hoffman, and Ward voting no. Hoffman: The motion fails on a split vote. We will go ahead and reconsider the item before us, which is the Conditional Use. I would like to suggest that any new motion as it is brought forward be very specific with regard to Commercial Design Standards and what it is that we would like staff to do and also include that setback. Since we are all being so talkative, I will go ahead and make a motion to approve CUP 02-23.00 with the specification that staff work closely with the applicant regarding Commercial Design Standards to mitigate any unarticulated wall surfaces visible from the street if none are visible in the new addition that additional landscaping and architectural features be added to enhance the attractiveness of the front facade. Allen: Could that include the existing building? Hoffman: The front would be the existing view from the street so it is my intent to try to put the funds where they are available where they could be put to the best use. Estes: Would the motion also include to avoid or minimize the square, box like structure nature of the elevations that we have in addition to avoiding the large, blank, unarticulated wall surfaces? Hoffman: It would in those that are visible from the street. Osmer: Could I amend your motion? Hoffman: What do you want and I will try to incorporate it in my motion. Ostner: The east elevation also. It is extremely prominent. It is more prominent I believe. As you approach it you barely see the facade because it is so close. Hoffman: We will put in my motion that the east and front elevations be considered for close scrutiny for the Commercial Design Standards. Staff, can you handle that? Conklin: Yes. Hoffman: Anybody else? Allen: From the south driving behind the church, wait, that is going to be the north, Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 59 behind the church in that little Fiesta Square Subdivision. Ward: That would be the east. Allen: Ok, never mind. Hoffman: I have a motion by myself, do I have a second? Shackelford: I will second. Hoffman: Thank you. Is there any other discussion? Shackelford: Just one other point. Mel, it was mentioned earlier that we don't have signed conditions of approval. We have stricken number two from the conditions of approval. Are there any other issues that you have with any of the other conditions, you or the applicant has on this request? Milholland: You have taken care of the setback business? Shackelford: Yes. Number two was Planning Commission approval of Large Scale Development to include a review of Commercial Design Standard requirements and we are basically passing that to staff. Thank you. Bunch: Does your motion include treatment of the 68' and the setbacks? Hoffman: Yes it does. Bunch: Another comment, we had a previous project in the Overlay District where we had an addition to the back of a building that was not necessarily going to be as visible and we did recommend some treatments to the front building in lieu of having the back part of the building stringently meet... Hoffman: Was that Karstetter's? Bunch: No. It was Williams Tractor. We modified the requirements on the back of the building so that the front of the building, the monies could be spent on the part that everyone would see. I also want to make sure that we include in the motion, and I'm sure that Tim will look at this administratively as a screening for air conditioning and utilities particularly with this setback situation where it probably would require a larger air conditioning unit that will be moved even closer to the south next to a residential area. I also want to make sure that the parking lot is brought up to the current standards, even though it has not been completely built but to reflect the addition to make sure that we have proper landscaping and the right percentages of landscaping and islands. Would your motion include those recommendations? Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 60 Hoffman. I think that my motion by its very nature would say that the parking lot must follow the parking lot ordinance. That is to me a given. Bunch: Which includes the retroactive work for an addition to a building? Hoffman: Yes. Is that as clear as mud to everybody? Ostner: I do have a point on the 68' since it abuts a residential district. I understand that the current property owners don't have a problem with it. I would think it would be fair and considerate of future property owners to maybe do some extra screening along the south property line. In the code if it is not air conditioned they request 200', which I am guessing because you are loud and rowdy I suppose. That is something that I would be interested in seeing. I understand that the current people might not have a problem with it but some added screening and vegetation would be very helpful since you are encroaching an extra 32' beyond. Hoffman: I am going to draw the line and not incorporate anything else to my motion. The reason being is that the existing property owners are the current property owners and are the ones to be affected once this is constructed the other people, I would say that they have fair warning. I think it mindful of trying not to be overly zealous when it comes to churches and try to realize that they are very much incorporated in our community and try to assist them and not treat them just like any other developer and at the same time accomplish the beautification from the front and if the existing people from behind don't have a problem with it then I don't. Sorry. Is there anybody else? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 02-23.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Hoffman: Thank you. The motion carries unanimously. Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 61 CUP 02-25.00: Conditional Use (Callahan Tower, pp 404) was submitted by CF Hull on behalf of Callahan Tower Joint Venture for property owned by Linda Kay Hinkle and located north of Wedington Drive and west of Garland Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.29 acres. The request is for a wireless communication facility. Hoffman: Item eight on our agenda tonight is CUP 02-25.00, which is a Conditional Use submitted by CF Hull on behalf of Callahan Tower Joint Venture for property located by Linda K. Hinkle and located north of Wedington Drive and west of Garland Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.29 acres. The request is for a wireless communications facility. We have twelve conditions of approval. Dawn, do we have signed conditions? Warrick: No Ma'am. Staff has recommended denial on this project. Hoffman. Ok, I will go ahead and read through these conditions however. 1) Applicant shall comply with all applicable federal regulations.2) Equipment used in connection with the tower shall not generate noise which can be heard beyond the site per .163.29 (A)(1). 3) Lighting on the tower shall only be installed if mandated by the FAA. Security lighting or motion -activated lighting may be used around the base of the tower provided that the lighting is shielded in such a way that no light is directed towards adjacent properties or rights-of-way. 4) The tower shall be a monopole, no taller than 150' (including all antennas, arrays or other appurtenances). 5) The utility equipment at the base of the tower shall be surrounded by a wooden security fence of sufficient height to screen all equipment housed at the base of the monopole. The tower shall also be equipped with an appropriate anti -climbing device. The facility shall place signs indicating tNo Trespassing., .High Voltage. or other pertinent information on the outside of the fence. 6) Landscaping shall be added to the site (and shown on plans) which provides a thuffer of dense tree growth and under story vegetation in all directions to create an effective year-round visual buffer. as required by .163.29 (A)(11). 7) Any connection to existing utilities to provide power to this site shall be located underground. 8) Only ownership and cautionary signage located on the screening fence shall be permitted as provided by .163.29(A)(3). 9) The applicant shall provide a certification letter that states the tower meets or exceeds design criteria and all local, state, and federal requirements regarding the construction, maintenance, and operation of the tower as provided by .163.29(B)(9)(a). 10) The applicant shall conduct inspections of the facility not less frequently than every 12 months to ensure maintenance and safety as required by §163.29(B)(9)(c). 11) Grass and weeds shall be cleared from the existing sidewalk along Wedington Drive. 12) Written approval from the Fayetteville Municipal Airport Director shall be provided prior to installation. Tim, do you want to give us the benefit of your information before we hear from the applicant? Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 62 Conklin: This is a request for a monopole structure, 150' tall co -location. Mr. Craig Hull did meet with staff prior to submitting the application. We did express our concern with regard to locating a monopole at this location. We did ask that they consider looking at co -location opportunities in this immediate area on adjacent buildings and businesses, possibly the University of Arkansas. I will just compliment their current provider that they have gone out and co -located on many structures in Fayetteville avoiding the need for new towers so they have made that effort in the past. However, at this time staff is not convinced that all of the alternatives were looked at with regard to how to provide additional capacity for this provider at this intersection with regard to the utilization of co -location and if you can't use co -location on an existing vertical structure the use of some type of stealth technology to help mitigate the visual impact at this location. What we are talking about is we did see a church steeple proposed at 265 and Township. Just researching this topic there are other methods of using stealth technology to help mitigate the impact of how these facilities look in the community and light poles have been used and other types of method. At this time staff is recommending denial of the request. We feel like at this point in time once again, that not all the alternatives were looked at with regard to how to provide additional capacity at this location for this particular wireless provider. Hoffman: Thank you Tim. Hull: I'm Craig Hull with Hull & Company. I am representing Callahan Tower Joint Ventures, which is the applicant for this proposal. The client would be Cingular Wireless who has submitted propagation studies and as requested at agenda session, I do have some additional information regarding the other sites in Fayetteville. I am passing around the results of the balloon test that happened Friday. This is the full color site map and then I have black and white. This is the advertisement that was in the paper for the balloon test so we have submitted everything. It is quite a process. I would have to compliment the staff and Dawn joined us for the balloon test Friday. As the pictures will depict, the wind picked up at times but it did get us pretty vertical for a little while for a couple of the shots that we got. Location, as you are aware of, is directly behind the Harp's Store and the Arvest Bank facing Wedington Drive. This tiny sized property dictates a tucked in kind of design for the site. The engineering drawings are supported in the application package. If the Commission finds that the staff's recommendations are to be overruled then the applicant would be happy to comply with all of the conditions of approval and would also entertain further requirements as far as something like a flagpole if that is necessary. I will leave it at that for questions. Hoffman: Thank you very much. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address us? Yes, if you would come forward please. Richards: My name is Joyce Richards and I live at 1673 N. Stevens. I got a call from Mr. Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 63 Wilson last week and he said that he had provided you with a packet expressing his concerns and recommending that you follow your staff's recommendation for denial and I told him that I would come here and tell you that I supported his view. I drive through that intersection probably everyday of my life and I don't see how you can camouflage a 150' pole at this intersection where two major arteries into the City of Fayetteville come and going up to the University. It seems to me that if you put a pole up there you are going to turn this into what looks like an industrial area and I just don't think that is appropriate. Also, I hate to stretch the point but if you are looking at safety there is a lot of foot traffic up and down both sides of Wedington on that sidewalk. There is also a lot of foot traffic into Harps and I am sure that you are aware that just northwest down through the trees you've got College Park, now known as Garden Park. Given the history of the residents of that complex I can just see some night someone throwing up a challenge "Why don't we go climb the tower?" I know you have a safety fence, safety devices, you've got camouflage but I just don't think is the right site for a pole of this height and I would ask you to follow your staff's recommendation and vote no. Hoffman: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address us tonight? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Planning Commission for discussion and motions. Hull: At your other recommendation from agenda session I would go over our process of elimination of how we arrived at this site. The tower that is down at 1780 Holly Street, which is the old radio station down the hill, is a 1971 vintage 24" face guide tower with short guides and would require, it won't hold anything like what we are talking about and it is tightly restricted onto the space that it is in. Hotz Hall immediately to the south of this location on the University campus has rooftop installations that are already in place. Additional antenna spaces possibly could work there but for this client particularly, Cingular, it won't work because they are positioned, as you will see on the site map, on the Razorback Stadium and it is too much interference. That doesn't accomplish what they are trying to get done, which is cover that gap down the hill. This is a pocket of high population and high traffic and of bad coverage for Cingular so that is what we are trying to respond to is the needs that they have expressed as far as meeting the needs of the resident population as well as the traveling public. We have looked at other alternatives as far as, they are already on the VA Tower. They are on Hillcrest towers. They are up on a building on top of Mount Sequoyah. Cingular has done an excellent job of trying to work with the existing topography and the structures that are available. There are no big, tall buildings around there. College Park building itself would maybe be the tallest structure and it is down further in the hole and it is still not nearly tall enough to do the job so I would suggest that if you have it in your heart to entertain a motion for approval of such a facility that the applicants could consider additional requirements that might satisfy staff. Thank you. Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 64 Hoffman: Thank you. Conklin: Madam Chair, do you mind if I ask the applicant a couple of questions? Hoffman: Please. Conklin- The first question would be for Cingular Wireless what elevations do the antennas have to be at to work at that intersection? Hull: The desired height is 150'. We are pushing them below that to stay within the ordinance because our actual lightning rod will go up to the top of 150' so they are going to be at 145' or so. Conklin: So the RF engineers stated that the antennas to work for that intersection to work with the system have to be 140' to 150'? Hull: The propagation study that you have got in your packet is from Cingular and it is based upon covering that area with that height. Your ordinance allows 150' as a maximum and obviously my clients in this venture are in the business of providing wireless communication antenna space. If you reduce the height of the structure to 130' or 125' or some absolute minimum size it limit's the potential for future co -locations for other installations, which by the ordinance, we are kind of in a pickle here. Conklin: I understand that. That is why I asked the question. If you are not looking at co - location just to provide the capacity needs for Cingular Wireless what elevation would they have to be? Hull: I didn't bring their RF engineer to say what the minimum level is but I am sure that they could probably live with 10' or 15' difference and make the coverage. When you get down below the canopy of the trees you are obviously fighting it. Also, the topography as you are well aware of, we have got a hillside to our immediate south and a hole down further to the north and then that whole coverage area out toward the freeway. Conklin: In your application submittal you put other locations considered and you stated that subject site was selected after consideration of various available single-family dwellings that were for sale. You talked about common sense told you that you wouldn't want to put that tower in a single-family neighborhood but you did discuss a little bit tonight about your other considerations with regard to non- residential property. I think you maybe answered this already, but did you approach the Harp's Development, Arvest, commercial development across the street, I guess all four corners of that intersection and then possibly the City of Fayetteville Fire Station. I am not sure if that site would work and whether or not Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 65 the Fire Department would like that if there are firemen watching tonight or the Chief, but there is a city ordinance that talks about marketing city property, public property, to encourage that. Whether or not there would be space at the fire station near Eagle Street to serve that intersection. Hull: I think that is more up toward the Cleveland intersection. That is really right in proximity with the Hotz Hall location as a general. Of course, Hotz Hall is much taller than any of the existing structures so we kind of did a process of elimination using that as our base and showing them on RFs where that is and they said "No, with the stadium we're stuck." As far as looking at the other corners of that particular interchange, Arvest Bank is a small, short structure. We did approach Harps, they said no. I called Fuzzy's as you suggested. We worked through the process with our local commercial. Nobody wants all of that equipment in their parking lot, especially with tight spaces and slopes like you have got in that area. You are eating up parking spaces, which are precious the commercial ventures. Even though these are relatively lucrative leases, you give up customer base in a commercial center for a bunch of equipment then you are killing yourself as far as making the retail space work. It is a catch 22 as far as that is concerned. I have seen clients actually have to pay for additional parking spaces in a lot after they got a monopole up just to put another piece of equipment on the ground so it is a delicate balance on the space. The 60X60 compound that we are talking about, we are considering even a reduction there and possibly even coming in if we can to look at a commercial structure that can be put in front of it if that is even to your liking. The clients are willing to work on this with y'all to make this thing kind of go away if we do a flagpole or something but they can't go too far out of that spot or else we are in a neighborhood or on an unwilling partner situation. We did our homework, contrary to others opinion, we do a pretty through job of eliminating the possible suspects. It is just hard to find a good site in Fayetteville for cell towers. Conklin: I have one more question. You are in line of site of the VA water tank, the other providers have facilities, co -location on existing poles and are able to address capacity issues currently. I don't have their information, my question is can you add additional capacity since you are in the line of site with the VA water tank and possibly other structures in Fayetteville by adding more antenna arrays on those structures to serve that area? Hull: As I understand it, they talk to each other and offload. The proximity of the VA is almost two miles away across the hills, a mile and half I suppose. The RF guys have that on your propagation study and show how this ping pong effect works back from hillcrest towers to the University to the VA and to catch this area that is in the hole. I am not an RF engineer. Conklin: I am not either and so when I go out there and I look up and see a blue water tank at the VA hospital I question why. Once again, I'm not an expert here. I have Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 66 Hull: heard that you have shadows with the hills and shadows with the trees and foliage during the summer and that you have to have this almost direct line of site to make your cell phones work and then I look up and I see the VA water tank sitting on top of the hill without any other hills or vegetation within the way from the intersection of Garland and Wedington or North Street right there. That is why I ask the question because there is nothing in the way of that water tank. If you look in the information that Cingular submitted in their justification statement they said that this is a capacity filler issue where they are offloading some signals from the VA tower that is overloaded and of course from the University when those football games, basketball games, and other special events happen you have got way over capacity as far as the use and they need over that hill to be over capacity that way and then everybody drives all over town, they swamp the VA and that is a layman's version of it. They told us they needed that area and that is why they gave us that range and that is why we went through the process and have gone through all of the considerable expense and trouble to go through this application process. We are trying to respond to your ordinance as creatively as we can. It is just tough because you've got population, you've got traffic, that is where you want service so you have got competing demands here. Conklin: This is my last question. So you have 72,000 people in the Donald W. Reynolds Razorback Stadium and they have cell phones and you have a huge capacity issue there and you are already on the stadium, is that correct? Hull: Yeah, they are in the stadium but they can't handle it with what they've got. Conklin: You are in the stadium already. Hull: That scoreboard thing just completely fouled them up last year. Conklin: Ok. When you say capacity issue I am looking at you have a stadium full of Razorback fans with cell phones and you can't hit Garland Avenue. Once again, I know RF engineers might be saying something different. I am just curious how that all works. Hull: They bring in a set of their own wheels for those events as well and they still can't handle it. You get fast busy no matter what you do. We are just hopeless because every time you turn around the age group goes down. We have got elementary school kids with cell phones now. Conklin: Thank you for letting me ask those questions. Hoffman: You bet Tim. Thank you for your answers. Bunch: I also have a series of questions. We are looking at capacity and growth. There is Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 67 Hull: a considerable amount of overlap with this particular site and with the existing VA site and the existing Razorback site and a little bit with the Hillcrest site. Has any consideration been given to the tower that is on Markham Hill or to the two towers that are on Dinsmore Trail? I realize that they are probably just a hair over a mile, just like the VA according to the map that you are showing here. If you are showing a one mile radius it is maybe a mile and an eighth rather than a mile and a half. We are getting in the position here it seems of looking at finite distances. Has Cingular's research and/or your research included looks at expansion to the west to pick up these other towers to help offload if we are looking at a capacity issue? As I understand it Don, and like I said, I am not an RF engineer, but the population density and the traffic patterns are such that central Fayetteville is where they have more cluster of units. If you see Markham Hill, and I mean, not Markham Hill but Mount Sequoyah and Hillcrest towers aren't that far physically apart but you have got a lot of people and a lot of traffic movement and then you have got the other side of Mount Sequoyah. By the same token, if you go along Markham Hill then you've got Dinsmore to block you to the west and the heel of Markham Hill, which is questionable as to availability anywhere except the existing water tank location. As I understand it the heel of Markham Hill itself would shield you and then you have got that other bump where Hotz Hall is and that is sitting right on top of the stadium again. The long and short on it is that this is from professionals at Cingular that want to invest a significant investment in this site and try to solve the customer needs that they want to meet. I don't understand all the details of electronics. Bunch: What I understand about it is that we had an applicant not too long ago that came in from out of state, not even familiar with Fayetteville at all and was able to provide us a packet that included all the information that we needed to make a decision. What we are looking at here we don't have the information that is called out for in our ordinance. I realize that our ordinance is stringent but we had somebody totally unfamiliar with Fayetteville walk into town and boom, they hit it right on the head. They provided all the information, they met our ordinance, stringent as it might be. This is the second application that we have had from you and this tower group that you are representing and both times we have been underrepresented on the information that we, as a body, need to make a decision. I am sitting here scratching my head, I am looking at one of the options that was listed was the radio KUAF radio tower on top of Yocum Hall, which is really a non -issue because I don't even see why that was listed as a place that you researched and could not use because it is totally unusable even if their antenna would support it. Just like the question you just gave about not being able to talk to the stadium. So one of the bits of homework that you have us as a place that you found and eliminated was a moot point to begin with. Hull: It was an existing wireless tower, it is a stub tower on top of Yocum Hall. Under Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 68 your ordinance, I had to get a response because it is as I identified it, a facility that I have to inquire on. I apologize if you feel my application is incomplete Mr. Bunch but please let me go on. You have to understand that if you have a site like the one that was just approved down in south Fayetteville with no opposition to it and with no opposition to it and with no apparent problems and then they come in with a monopole structure that meets the ordinance and it gets approved. If the next applicant comes along and asks for a monopole of 150' that meets the criteria, and if I missed something I'm sorry, but I believe I've got a pretty complete application as I went over it with the staff. I have indicated and I hope that you will remember, my clients are willing to work with you on further considerations of cloaking if that is absolutely a standard but if you look at your history of approvals you have only approved monopoles so that is what they applied for. Maybe I misadvised my client by telling them that that was the minimum requirements in Fayetteville was to build a monopole. Bunch: It is kind of a confusion factor to use Yocum Hall in the first place because one of the things that was used was an existing antenna not attached to the structure itself. That became questionable also instead of attaching to the building structure that would support the antenna array, the letter that we have says that their antenna would not support an additional array. That threw a confusion factor in. You know, why was this even presented to us. Hull: I did a one mile radius, I checked all of the antennas that were in that one mile, that was on the list, I eliminated it. I am sorry if I confused you on that. Bunch: Again, in looking at that location it is almost as far away and with the topographical concerns as the VA Hospital. Again, is it even a valid consideration. You know when we are talking about the cloaking and the stealth and the camouflaging it seems more like this particular application has misinterpreted the camouflage and the stealth are to apply to the physical structure of the antenna support system as opposed to the application process itself. It seems like there is more cloaking and camouflage in the application where we are trying to look for answers to questions that the ordinance says must be answered. I can't support this as it sits right now because there is such a lack of information. Williams: As you are aware, I handed out just a two page memo about what the law is. Of course, one is that whatever finding you make needs to be in writing separate from the minutes, which are always transcribed, but that is insufficient according to the courts. Secondly, the only regulation that prohibits us, or puts burdens on us, is the federal regulation which states that our local regulations shall not prohibit, or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services, which means that you don't have to necessarily approve everything that comes forward, you just can't adopt a policy in Fayetteville that would prohibit any cell tower locations. I think that we have established through all the towers that we have in town that that is not the city's policy. You do have to have some Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 69 Motion: Estes: reasonable beliefs and findings and facts to support your decision one way or the other. Aesthetics can be considered, it has been recognized by several courts. Public comment can also be considered and also, our ordinance itself can be considered and there are a couple of parts of that I wanted to point out to you. First, subsection 4, it is entitled CAMOUFLAGING OR STEALTH TECHNOLOGY ON NEW TOWERS. It says tithe applicant demonstrates that it is not feasible to locate on an existing structure then towers shall be designed to be camouflaged. That puts the burden entirely on the applicant to show that there is not an existing structure upon which it is feasible to put this cell tower. As the City Planner has asked, his questions he asked about existing structures, I don't know if I didn't receive all of the information that you all have but I am not aware if when they gave you information whether they checked out the large barns that are located immediately north of Deane Street on University of Arkansas property that seem to be where they would be able to cover this shaded area. You might be able to attach a cell tower for example to that. I will also point out that under sub- section 6(C) INFORMATION REQUIRED TO PROCESS NEW TOWER REQUESTS, it states that the applicant will provide a map that shows other potential stand alone locations for your facility that have been explored so it is not only current antennas but also stand alone facilities, where else could this be located that would adequately serve the needs of the telecommunications facility that are still within this area close enough to cover it that have been explored. That is a burden that the ordinance has placed upon the petitioner. Those are some further things for you to consider while you are making your decision on this issue. It is my opinion that in assessing the visual impact of the proposed tower that that impact is significant. In addition, the applicant has not developed a record demonstrating that it has made full effort to evaluate the other available alternatives and that the alternatives are not feasible to service customers. As Mr. Williams has explained to us, our ordinance requires that he applicant provide a map that shows other potential stand alone locations for the facility that have been explored and that map has not been submitted to us as provided by the ordinance. It is for those reasons that I would move that we not approve CUP 02-25.00. Hoffman: I have a motion for denial by Commissioner Estes, do I have a second? Bunch: I will second. Hoffman: There is a second by Commissioner Bunch. Is there additional discussion? Ward: I do know that there is an area, I have friends that live along Sang Street that have no service with their cell phones, and they live there. In fact, I was talking to one this morning. He has to walk out of his house and drive somewhere Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 70 to even get cell phone coverage so within very close distance of this so I think there definitely is a need. I feel like that instead of voting for denial that I would like to see us table this and we have asked for some specific documentation. Hopefully there are some other locations that this can be located. I don't know if there is or not but I also think we have a federal mandate that puts a little more pressure on than just saying we don't want it. I am not sure that we couldn't let the applicant, now that he has heard from Commissioner Bunch exactly what we expect, I think that this would be a much better issue to table and then if it is not something that he is not interested in or willing to do, then it dies anyway. Hoffman- I think that is a good point. I believe that a denial of a conditional use is appealable only to the court? Conklin- No, the ordinance changed. It can go to the City Council. However, if you do deny it, it can't be reheard within one year so it does eliminate this site for one year. Hoffman: I too would've voted against this particular site for the aesthetic reasons and for the lack of documentation on alternative sites so I am weighing in. If anyone else would care to let the applicant know and then maybe you can let us know what your pleasure would be regarding a motion to table instead of a motion for denial. Hull: I am sure my clients would prefer to have a table motion with some possibility of salvage at some point down the line. I certainly respect your request for additional information. It was not my intent to mislead you if that is the way you felt. Hoffman: We recognize that you have a tough job to do and we are going to give you more time to do it it sounds like. Estes: With the permission of the second I will withdraw the motion to deny. Hoffman: Do you want to replace that with a motion to table? Estes: No. Bunch: I will remove my second. Motion: Ward: I would like to make a motion to table this particular item, CUP 02-25.00 for a tower. Hoffman: I have a motion to table by Commissioner Ward. Tim, when would the next time that this would be reheard? The next Commission meeting? I guess that would Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 71 depend on you about how long you think it would take to get the information together. Conklin: I think we would want to do the notification again for the public and have the applicant do that so it would be September, the first meeting in September. That way we can renotify the public again. We don't really have enough time to do that between now and the 26th. Hull: No more balloons? Hoffman: It depends on if you change sites I suppose. Bunch: I would like to read something into the record on this. It is from a letter that was in our packet. As in any project, the more information provided and the more listening done by all parties, the better the outcome. This was a letter to Ms. Joyce Richards from Craig Hull. If we could take our own advice and get some more information on this. Look at things like the shopping center across the street on the southwest corner, the school. Look at closer to the Overlay District. There are an awful lot of possible locations and a lot of structures in that area that could possibly support a tower or an antenna array. Hoffman: I have a motion by Commissioner Ward to table, do I have a second? Bunch: I will second. Hoffman: There is a second by Commissioner Bunch. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to table CUP 02-25.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Hoffman: The motion carries on a unanimous vote. Thank you. Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 72 ADM 02-24.00: Administrative Item (Master Street Plan Setback Ordinance) to adopt an ordinance to establish setback lines on such streets and highways as are designated on the Master Street Plan and prohibiting the establishment of any new structure or other improvements within the setback lines. Hoffman: The ninth item on our agenda tonight is ADM 02-24.00, the Master Street Plan Setback Ordinance, to adopt an ordinance to establish setback lines on such streets and highways as are designated on the Master Street Plan and prohibiting the establishment of any new structure or other improvements within the setback lines. Tim? Conklin: This is an ordinance amendment to add into our Unified Development Ordinance the ability for staff to require that all improvements on developments less than an acre that do not go through Large Scale Development process and dedicate the right-of-way, that their parking lots, display areas, and landscaping all be setback based on that Master Street Plan. Therefore, if you have one development over an acre it goes through Large Scale, they have the additional right-of-way, the sidewalk, and the landscaping whereas if you have a development less than an acre you don't get the same amount of right-of-way which doesn't allow for the street to be expanded in the future and you have potentially, for example, a used car lot that may not be meeting the Master Street Plan setbacks. This was brought to my attention by a local developer who asked to have me show him the ordinance where I could require this. I was unable to produce that ordinance and therefore, it is before you this evening. I ask that you make a recommendation for the City Council to approve this. Thank you. Hoffman: Thanks Tim. There is no public to comment so I will go ahead and bring it to the Commission for motions and discussion. Anybody? Motion: Ostner: I move that we approve ADM 02-24.00. Hoffman: And that is going to be for a recommendation to City Council for approval. Allen: I second. Hoffman: I have a second by Commissioner Allen. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 02-24.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Hoffman: Thank you. The motion carries unanimously. Tim, is there any further business before us tonight or announcements? Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 73 Conklin: There is no additional business or announcements. Hoffman: Thank you everybody for staying so late. We will see you next time. We are adjourned. Meeting adjourned: 9:20 p.m.